Dr Fate - go ahead. I suspect that won't be the argument against subsidies being cancelled. And I'm unaware of any 'left leaning posters' on Redscape really being in favour of ethanol subsidies.

Oh, you won't "waste your time" proving something you know to be false... I get it. it's a throwaway line for no purpose. gottit.

and...

I didn't say I was against ending the subsidies. I did say I would vote for it for political reasons--to show the Democrats for the empty suits and frauds they are.

Which is what I said someone was saying. Twit much?

However, in the big picture, I would end most all subsidies--ethanol, farm, and especially green energy. Let businesses compete. Would Democrats support that?

Probaby not, but that's an ideological difference between the more free-market Republicans and the more managed-market Democrats. The point is that the Republicans in Congress will, like you did, say that subsidies are bad. But then, unlike you, they vote to keep them.

danivon wrote:

However, in the big picture, I would end most all subsidies--ethanol, farm, and especially green energy. Let businesses compete. Would Democrats support that?

Probaby not, but that's an ideological difference between the more free-market Republicans and the more managed-market Democrats. The point is that the Republicans in Congress will, like you did, say that subsidies are bad. But then, unlike you, they vote to keep them.

And, so do Democrats. If this were not so, the subsidies could not have survived until now.

But Democrats are not saying that they are ideologically opposed to subsidies. So it's consistent that they wouldn't vote against them. Do you grep this yet?

danivon wrote:But Democrats are not saying that they are ideologically opposed to subsidies. So it's consistent that they wouldn't vote against them. Do you grep this yet?

So, you're saying, essentially, that some subsidies are okay to Democrats, this one suddenly is not (it was fine for the last two years at least), and yet this does not indicate that the Democrats are insincere?

Look at the pretty, pretty fireworks.

$1.6T deficit? Look at the fireworks!

$14.3T debt? Wo-ah! Did you see the colors in THAT one?

More than $100T in unfunded liabilities? Nothing better than fireworks, eh?

Completely disingenuous and cynical on the part of the Democrats.

steve

For example, I think there is some merit to the argument that doing away with tax breaks (nee "subsidies") would

So I'm arguing about ending the "subsidies specifically on imported oil (especially from Saudi Arabia"
and you bring in information about the subsidies on domestic producers ...
Note in your source that Big Oil is responsible for only 7% of domestic US production... Thats because they makl most of their money importing. And they are specifically given a tax break becaise part of the cost of production is counted as a "tax payment".

There is a difference between the application of a subsidy or tax break for American production and the one's granted to Internationals in Saudi Arabia.
Now, i think that its interesting that you can't tell the difference between the application of grants and subsidies for American producers and for Internationals importing from Saudi Arabia.
Why are you confused in this Steve?

Steve

You say we are being hurt by the subsidies because it makes Saudi oil even cheaper than it otherwise would be compared to US oil. Prove it, Ricky.

No I didn't say it made Saudi oil even cheaper. I said it made it even more profitable. If you know anything about oil its that it is a global market with a global price. Whether i buy from a domestic supplier or a Saudi its the same price. Only the cost of transportation of the crude is varied. But the Internationals like importing because its more profitable for them, and the tax break, which might make sense for a domestic producer is an abomionation when given for improted oil. Please note you own source showed that only 7% of domestic production was from the Internationals....
The reason is that its more profitable to import for them... The stupid tax break exacerbates the problem.

steve

So, Ricky, are you saying, Ricky, that Big Oil runs the government, Ricky?

They wrote Cheneys' energy polciy Steve. And they get the rules the require. Co-opting the regulator enorcement of the MMM lead to the Gulf Oil disaster... Co-opting the legislative body has meant some painful polcies. None of which are genuineinely in the best interest of your nation.

I see a great difference between domestic production and imported....Your taxation and trade policies don't. Why not? (Hint, the Internationals only produce 7% of the domestic supply....)

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:But Democrats are not saying that they are ideologically opposed to subsidies. So it's consistent that they wouldn't vote against them. Do you grep this yet?

So, you're saying, essentially, that some subsidies are okay to Democrats, this one suddenly is not (it was fine for the last two years at least), and yet this does not indicate that the Democrats are insincere?

Why is it that no matter the topic for you it turns sooner rather than later into Democrats suck, Democrats suck too, or Democrats did it too or something along those lines.
Are you even capable of judging an issue on it's own merit anymore, or is it enough for you to know the Democrats want it to be against it no matter what ?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:But Democrats are not saying that they are ideologically opposed to subsidies. So it's consistent that they wouldn't vote against them. Do you grep this yet?

So, you're saying, essentially, that some subsidies are okay to Democrats, this one suddenly is not (it was fine for the last two years at least),

Well, some subsidies are ok, but not all, and not all the time. Things change, after all, right?

And just because they didn't repeal it in the two years, doesn't mean that they liked it. There were other things going on. Maybe they felt it was bearable during the recession, but no longer appropriate with some recovery ongoing. Maybe they feel it's part of (not all of) a plan to tackle spending. Maybe attitudes have changed since the Gulf problems a year ago. Maybe it's just a cynical ruse to make the Republicans vote for it to continue and look like shills for 'Big Oil'. Maybe it's a combination.

and yet this does not indicate that the Democrats are insincere?

And let's face it that's all you care about, innit?

Completely disingenuous and cynical on the part of the Democrats.

Well, they're politicians after all. But I think you're pointing out motes when there's a ruddy great plank over your face.

But well done for going a whole thread without so far blaming Obama personally.

More garbage from three producers. No facts, just ad hominem.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

However, in the big picture, I would end most all subsidies--ethanol, farm, and especially green energy. Let businesses compete. Would Democrats support that?

Probaby not, but that's an ideological difference between the more free-market Republicans and the more managed-market Democrats. The point is that the Republicans in Congress will, like you did, say that subsidies are bad. But then, unlike you, they vote to keep them.

And, so do Democrats. If this were not so, the subsidies could not have survived until now.

Perhaps I could suggest that reality might be a third way: subsidies and tax breaks exist because benefiting people and corporations have asked for them and then got them. This makes these interested people and corporations money, a small amount of which is returned to politicians who created the tax break or subsidy in the form of political contributions. The larger the tax break or subsidy, the HARDER it is to kill because there is more money involved for the beneficiaries. In my view it's a pretty simple formula which has almost nothing to do with ideology. It's just people looking out for their own self-interest.

But, to clarify, regarding the topic of big oil subsidies, the dems have made this a political issue because of high oil prices. On Meet the Press this Sunday, they had on a democratic rep who just couldn't stop bringing the big oil tax breaks up. It was his number one talking point, so your special interest will be thrown under the bus if politics trump it.

But even with big oil, I don't think politics will trump the subsidies. I predict nothing is going to happen here, or with other subsidies. There are just too many monied interests on all sides. *Sigh*

geojanes wrote:Perhaps I could suggest that reality might be a third way: subsidies and tax breaks exist because benefiting people and corporations have asked for them and then got them. This makes these interested people and corporations money, a small amount of which is returned to politicians who created the tax break or subsidy in the form of political contributions. The larger the tax break or subsidy, the HARDER it is to kill because there is more money involved for the beneficiaries. In my view it's a pretty simple formula which has almost nothing to do with ideology. It's just people looking out for their own self-interest.

Ultimately, there are two parties in charge of everything. For two years, the Democrats ran the House, Senate, and White House, even having a filibuster-proof majority for a time. Did they repeal these tax breaks?

No. and, as you point out, I think the reason they are trumpeting the issue now is obvious: politics. They hope by attacking Big Oil (who likes oil companies, other than their stockholders?) they will distract from their own failures--high unemployment, high deficits, and record levels of spending.

As for the other naysayers, I still ask for more than pejoratives and opinion. This article seems to indicate ending the tax breaks is purely punitive and will ensure we get MORE oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, not less. I'm still waiting for evidence to the contrary.

steve

This article seems to indicate ending the tax breaks is purely punitive

Well oilprice.com would feel that way wouldn't they?
I think its interesting that in oil industry editorial they conflate the subsidies for domestioc production so easily with the multi nationals tax breaks.
No one likes making a smaller profit. And ending the subsidy I'm specifically been talking about does nothing but take a very small portion of the foreign multinationals profits in taxes. Could the US use those taxes Steve? (Your author didn't mention the US deficit at all did he?)
And it taxes fairly. Right no the ability to write off Saudi Royalties" as a foreign tax rather than a the standard "cost of production" is discriminating against US production.

More opinion.

If that's all you're going to do, you needn't repeat yourself.