Why Do The "Progressives" Keep Arguing That "Big Oil" Get Subsidies?

[matt0611]

No surprise, his ideas are neatly packaged for easy digestion by rubes.

What about second world dictators? What about first world democracies? 18 cents means dick if it poisons our relationships. Surely our aid to Israel would be on that list....right?

Yeah, probably not.

Stupid, oversimplified answers to complex questions - the MO of the liberteatards.

Its a better idea than eliminating tax breaks to oil companies that will somehow...lower gas prices? LMAO, yeah... ok.
Oh no, wait, it will just bring in more money to spend on more worthless government programs, thats it!

Lets see, the oil companies take 7 cents per gallon, the federal government takes 18 cents per gallon.

And yeah, if you knew anything about Rand, he is for cutting off aid to Israel as well. Woops!

Why are we giving money to first world democracies?
We need to buy friends by borrowing money from China to give money to first world democracies?

Lol yeah ok, I'm the rube.

Finding answers to problems that make them worse, the MO of liberal retards like yourself and harry.

Your ideas are performing just grand right now I see.

 

[IBMer]

What's even more ironic is how the oil companies get around 7 cents or so for every gallon of gas sold, but the US government gets north of 20 cents per gallon

No, thats 7 cents of PROFIT. Not 7 cents period. They get significantly more than that. That 7 cents is free and clear past any expense. Guess what an expense is? Salary and Compensation. Like the 22 million dollars that Rex Tillerson CEO of Exxon got.

 

[JTsyo]

oh man, it the tax cut argument all over again.

 

[wuliheron]

Lets see, the oil companies take 7 cents per gallon, the federal government takes 18 cents per gallon.

I'll take 7 cents a gallon. Hey, its the oil pumped out from under your feet. Maybe you'll give me 7 cents a gallon profit for selling your water? Free is good. Got anything else you want to give me?

 

[sMiLeYz]

Its a better idea than eliminating tax breaks to oil companies that will somehow...lower gas prices? LMAO, yeah... ok.
Oh no, wait, it will just bring in more money to spend on more worthless government programs, thats it!

Did you figure out how tax returns work yet? I still remember many lulz from that one.

No one actually said eliminating tax breaks for oil companies would lower gas prices, just like no one is dumb enough to believe drilling in Alaska will make our gas prices lower (hopefully).

But...

People are bitching about the deficit, oil companies get billion dollar subsidies, while making billions in revenue so the discussion is about removing those subsidies so the government can get tax revenue.

 

[spacejamz]

Because it is disingenuous.

Then please enlighten us as to the true breakdown as you understand it.

 

[sandorski]

Then please enlighten us as to the true breakdown as you understand it.

Oil Companies don't rely on Gas Sales from the Pump for most of their Revenue/Profit.

 

[matt0611]

Did you figure out how tax returns work yet? I still remember many lulz from that one.

No one actually said eliminating tax breaks for oil companies would lower gas prices, just like no one is dumb enough to believe drilling in Alaska will make our gas prices lower (hopefully).

But...

People are bitching about the deficit, oil companies get billion dollar subsidies, while making billions in revenue so the discussion is about removing those subsidies so the government can get tax revenue.

Tax returns?
I think you have me confused with someone else.

"“We have to do something about the exorbitant gas prices, and the best way to start with that is to do something about the five big oil companies getting subsidies they don't need." - Harry Reid

Go ahead, cut out the tax breaks, by all means, just don't bitch when gas prices go up though.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No one actually said eliminating tax breaks for oil companies would lower gas prices, just like no one is dumb enough to believe drilling in Alaska will make our gas prices lower (hopefully).

Oh really?

“We have to do something about the exorbitant gas prices, and the best way to start with that is to do something about the five big oil companies getting subsidies they don't need,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-Nevada)

“There’s lots of things we can do [to lower gas prices], we can start by eliminating the $4 billion subsidy that big oil companies get.” - Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rep. Steve Israel (D-New York)

“The bottom line is that we are still giving ridiculous, unacceptable subsidies to oil companies and massive tax breaks that even they’ve said they don’t need. That’s the first step that we need to take to try to bring our energy costs down.” - Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida)

People are bitching about the deficit, oil companies get billion dollar subsidies, while making billions in revenue so the discussion is about removing those subsidies so the government can get tax revenue.

Why focus solely on 5 oil companies and not ALL corporations who receive "tax breaks" like foreign tax credits for royalty payments to foreign governments? Don't you find that curious?

 

[Throckmorton]

The only major write off targeted directly at oil companies is the ability to write off 70% of exploration costs and this has been around since 1913.

You are a buffoon

 

[schneiderguy]

No, thats 7 cents of PROFIT. Not 7 cents period. They get significantly more than that. That 7 cents is free and clear past any expense. Guess what an expense is? Salary and Compensation. Like the 22 million dollars that Rex Tillerson CEO of Exxon got.

The CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world doesn't deserve 22 million dollars a year? OK.

 

[Throckmorton]

The idea that ending subsidies would lower gas prices though is ridiculous

 

[desy]

Of course oil companies are subsidized directly and indirectly and if you were to take them away then the cost of gasoline would rise. I don't have a problem with that and oil and gas should stand on their merits of its own profitability not artificial money shuffling.
We have enjoyed 20 years of historically low prices and have built communities and lifestyles and vehicle choices around that would always be the case. If North America had continued on the path of self reliance and efficiency from the late 70's we wouldn't have come up against it again only to have history repeat itself.

 

[piasabird]

There should not be any deductions or subsidies for any businesses or companies of any kind. Cant fix stupid! This includes tax abatements. All tax abatements should be considered payment-in-kind, and should have to be reported as income on their income taxes.

Not even farmers should get tax breaks. Farming is just another kind of business. Farmers should only get breaks when the area they are in is declared a disaster area.

 

[Artista]

I believe that the subsidies need to stop. That and the oil companies need to actually pay for the federal (public) land that they have their equipment on. They are basically getting free rent.

The Republican party voted in the house to block the bill that would have ended the subsidies.

So in other words a working mother or father of three kids or a plumber or fresh college graduate or a person serving the country in the military, etc has to pay tax on what they earn and pay their rent but BIG OIL DOES NOT? WTF?

Side note: GE (not a oil company) payed zero tax in 2010. How much did you, a working class stiff pay?

The working class once again gets arse raped by the republican politicians.
(Do a audit on who pays off the republican politicians that voted against the bill and see if it includes big oil.)

 

[IBMer]

The CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world doesn't deserve 22 million dollars a year? OK.

Does he also deserve to get it when they are claiming the need to charge 4 dollars a gallon of gas while crude is lower in price and they have record revenues?

 

[Engineer]

What's even more ironic is how the oil companies get around 7 cents or so for every gallon of gas sold, but the US government gets north of 20 cents per gallon

and refineries are making (profit) anywhere from $0.60 to $1.20 (Midwest) per gallon of gas refined/sold.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/14/2875367/oil-refiners-big-profits-help.html

 

[SparkyJJO]

and refineries are making (profit) anywhere from $0.60 to $1.20 (Midwest) per gallon of gas refined/sold.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/14/2875367/oil-refiners-big-profits-help.html

Well then, tax the refineries. That will lower prices. That always works.

/sarcasm

 

[Fern]

Why Do The "Progressives" Keep Arguing That "Big Oil" Get Subsidies?

I think the "why" is because of ideology, and political tactics. They hate oil companies and they hate the use of fossil fuels inspite of their value to us as a civilized and technically advanced society.

And IMO it's terribly hypocritical. Their purposeful misuse of terms/words is mere spin for (devious) political purposes.

For people who like to brag about their intellect and claim to master and understand nuance it's really shameful. The English language employs any number of various words to help convey things in a precise way. "Subsidy" is one word. "Tax breaks" can be employed to more precisely describe an item. We also have "tax credits" and "deductions" to help clarify. To lump all these later terms in with the former is devious and hypocritical.

We have any number of social welfare type benefits now in our income tax system. Things such as the Earned Income Credit and Child Care Credit, yet you'll never hear a lib/dem/progressive refer to them as "welfare benefits". No, in this case they adhere mightily to using the specific term, completely unlike their behavior with regards to Big Oil.

IMO, if you want to have a legitimate discussion about Big Oil and any government benefits it may or may not receive, the discussion demands use of the more precise terms (tax credit, deductions etc). Otherwise you're just misleading those who pay superficial attention to the matter in order to inflame them for your political purposes. It's emotion over informed and objective logic.

Those who start out using the term "subsidy" for all mannners of various items such as deductions and credits reveal their own bias.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I believe that the subsidies need to stop. That and the oil companies need to actually pay for the federal (public) land that they have their equipment on. They are basically getting free rent.

Oil companies do pay for that. They pay for their leases and they also pay royalties (% of revenue from oil pumped/produced).

Now, I'm not saying they always pay enough in royalties. The USA actually charges less on average than many other countries. IIRC, it Bill Clinton who managed during his term to allow oil companies to pay zero in royalties. Of course he claimed it was by 'mistake'.

For one thing oil companies pay a lot in taxes. Just look up their financials

For another GE isn't paying because of Republicans. It's because of Left/dems/progressive love of all things "green". GE escaped taxes because of credits for manufacturing/selling energy efficient products.

Fern

 

[PeshakJang]

I believe that the subsidies need to stop. That and the oil companies need to actually pay for the federal (public) land that they have their equipment on. They are basically getting free rent.

You shouldn't start an argument with something so ridiculously false that it makes people want to stop reading. Oil and gas companies pay insane amounts of money to merely get the rights to explore land, much less lease.

The Republican party voted in the house to block the bill that would have ended the subsidies.

And Harry Reid has been responsible for defeating proposals to tax mineral companies that literally pay *nothing* to mine on federal land... several times:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...federal-land-spared-taxes-aided-senator-reid/

Why does Harry Reid think it's ok to give mineral companies 100% tax subsidies?

Harry Reid is responsible for giving big mineral companies 100% tax subsidies for stripping federal land.

So in other words a working mother or father of three kids or a plumber or fresh college graduate or a person serving the country in the military, etc has to pay tax on what they earn and pay their rent but BIG OIL DOES NOT? WTF?

How much did Exxon pay in taxes last year? $7.7 billion to the US government, which is after offsets from the $15 billion they paid overseas countries. They paid the most in taxes of any US company.

But that's not enough, right?

Side note: GE (not a oil company) payed zero tax in 2010. How much did you, a working class stiff pay?

The working class once again gets arse raped by the republican politicians.

Which president does the CEO of GE currently pal around with in the White House? Is is Bush? Reagan? Don't tell me... it's gotta be one of those evil Republicans. No Democratic president would allow the CEO of one of the biggest corporations in the world to help him write policy, sit on his advisory boards, and hold a high position within his administration, while he pays no federal taxes. That wouldn't be tolerated!

(Do a audit on who pays off the republican politicians that voted against the bill and see if it includes big oil.)

http://www.opensecrets.org/

It's right there. Go find the damning evidence you want. Just be careful, you might not like what you find.

Facts suck when you're a progressive.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I'll take 7 cents a gallon. Hey, its the oil pumped out from under your feet. Maybe you'll give me 7 cents a gallon profit for selling your water? Free is good. Got anything else you want to give me?

Good idea on the water but too late. Dumb ass Americans and all over the world, people are buying bottled water that can be found right under their feet.

 

[wuliheron]

Good idea on the water but too late. Dumb ass Americans and all over the world, people are buying bottled water that can be found right under their feet.

I'll just have to think of something else the public will gladly give away for free. With the economy I'm sure soon enough I'll be able to collect even first born children. You can get at least $40,000.oo for a blond haired blue eyed boy in Mexico.

 

[Artista]

You shouldn't start an argument with something so ridiculously false that it makes people want to stop reading. Oil and gas companies pay insane amounts of money to merely get the rights to explore land, much less lease.



And Harry Reid has been responsible for defeating proposals to tax mineral companies that literally pay *nothing* to mine on federal land... several times:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...federal-land-spared-taxes-aided-senator-reid/

Why does Harry Reid think it's ok to give mineral companies 100% tax subsidies?

Harry Reid is responsible for giving big mineral companies 100% tax subsidies for stripping federal land.



How much did Exxon pay in taxes last year? $7.7 billion to the US government, which is after offsets from the $15 billion they paid overseas countries. They paid the most in taxes of any US company.

But that's not enough, right?



Which president does the CEO of GE currently pal around with in the White House? Is is Bush? Reagan? Don't tell me... it's gotta be one of those evil Republicans. No Democratic president would allow the CEO of one of the biggest corporations in the world to help him write policy, sit on his advisory boards, and hold a high position within his administration, while he pays no federal taxes. That wouldn't be tolerated!



http://www.opensecrets.org/

It's right there. Go find the damning evidence you want. Just be careful, you might not like what you find.

Facts suck when you're a progressive.

First of all I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal. The truth is both the Republican party and Democratic party and politicians are in general (though not all) corrupt, slimy, money grubbing bastards.

Yes a lot (not all) of Democrat politicians are free spending tree hugger's who would turn our country into a welfare state.

Yet we know that the majority (not all) of Republican politicians who rape and pillage the working class are basically Fascists who hide the agenda behind religion, the American flag and nonconservative causes.

Basically the things you and others have pointed to is that most politicians (Both major parties in America) are crooks, and seek nothing except power for themselves, their party and those who financed them into office.

That pretty much has been my point for years.:twisted:

Yet if all of those who are Republicans go to bed every night believing that the Republican party has your (working class) best interest at heart over that of corporate America, I say stop snorting the fairy dust.

I am sick of hearing about how the country is broke while watching the Republican party continue the give away to the rich, and equally disturbed watching the Democratic party spend like a teenage girl with a new credit card in the mall.

Both parties want the American people to argue and not pay attention that they are getting richer and the working people are getting poorer and poorer. So please everyone continue to be stupid and argue how "your party" is going to save you, the country, the world, and is the savior of mankind.

On to the lease issue:

It would seem that some of the free/discount leases were enacted during the Clinton administration. Who is actually responsible for those I am not sure. The article doesn't say. Part of Congress was controlled by the Republicans and the other by Democrat's. Who was in charge of negotiating the contracts and who approved them is another issue that the article does not point out.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-says-oil-companies-pay-nothing-gulf-drillin/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_195764.asp

What the hell is the President doing?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558

GE tax story

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/

 

[nobodyknows]

So do you, why arent liberals protesting your tax subsidy?

Maybe because he doesn't have a $400 million retirement plan like the retired CEO of Mobil/Exxon has?

Or maybe because he's not making record profits?