View topic - Exclusive tax breaks for big oil • Redscape

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 15994; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

19 May 2011, 12:03 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
rickyp wrote:
Subsidies--not really. Actually, they are tax breaks, depletion allowances, etc.--very similar to what most other companies in other fields get.

You can call a turd a rosebud. Its still smells the same.
Other industries pay for production costs but they aren't called foreign taxation. But oil corporations can pay royalties for extraction and deem them to be taxes. Depriving the US state of taxes evey other industry pays due to this preferential treatment.

You can demonstrate that every other industry pays them?

I don't know that he needs to. Just that most others do. For these 5 oil companies, and other industries with a similar tax break, the effect is essentially the same as if they were all paying the same rates of tax and the government applied a subsidy. A tax break is basically a more efficient way to subsidise.

So, the fact that corporations receive tax breaks to drill domestically means that it costs more to drill here? That "truth" is not immediately intuitive to the casual observer.

Really? So the US has not got higher wage costs than most other countries? Even using 'intuition' (and not bothering to check 'facts'), this casual observer can think of at least that extra cost to US domestic drilling. I can also add another factor - location. The areas to drill are in Alaska (remote, cold, sensitive to pollution) and the Gulf (deep water, storm-prone, recently the site of a major drilling accident) are costly. While some other foreign reserves are in difficult locations, it may well be that many are not.

First, it absolutely is a sideshow. We are talking a few billion. The problem facing the US is tens of TRILLIONS. Eliminating subsidies, while politically cool, would be like spitting on a forest fire.

Ah, so no point worrying about. So essentially any argument over the US budget that only concerns an amount of less than 'a few billion' dollars is a side-show, and cuts of that magnitude or less are basically next to useless?

Well, that's ok (and I hope that we can't easily find any recent massive arguments about cuts of such paltry nine-digit amounts), but while a 'few billion' isn't much money to you, I can assure you that the about $21bn over ten years that the provision would have removed in tax breaks is a fair amount to these companies. When you compare the effect in one year, it's about 1% of the difference in deficit terms between the Ryan plan and the Administration's budget for 2012. For a single area of the budget, that's actually not too bad a contribution.

The key thing is this: Congress is throwing dirt into the air to convince us they are busy. However, they are failing to tackle the big issues: debt, spending, a budget. If you think this will go a long way toward solving those problems--prove it.

Does it need to solve the deficit problem alone? No. Can it contribute towards reducing the deficit? Yes.

I await the next spending issue that has an effect of $2bn a year which affects an area you are less happy to support, and your principled opposition to a cut based on your comments above...

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

19 May 2011, 12:40 pm

danivon wrote:I don't know that he needs to. Just that most others do.

That's not what he said.

rickyp wrote:Depriving the US state of taxes every other industry pays due to this preferential treatment.

So, the fact that corporations receive tax breaks to drill domestically means that it costs more to drill here? That "truth" is not immediately intuitive to the casual observer.
Really? So the US has not got higher wage costs than most other countries? Even using 'intuition' (and not bothering to check 'facts'), this casual observer can think of at least that extra cost to US domestic drilling.

You got one thing right: you are a casual observer. A careful reader would know that you missed his whole point: that subsidies make American oil more expensive. He said "subsidies" not "wages." He also didn't write "location." So, unless you want to suggest that minimum wages or whatever are a "subsidy" to oil companies (which makes no sense), your post . . . makes no sense.

First, it absolutely is a sideshow. We are talking a few billion. The problem facing the US is tens of TRILLIONS. Eliminating subsidies, while politically cool, would be like spitting on a forest fire.
Ah, so no point worrying about. So essentially any argument over the US budget that only concerns an amount of less than 'a few billion' dollars is a side-show, and cuts of that magnitude or less are basically next to useless?

No, but a nice ersatz argument. There are major issues that are pressing right now and Democrats are doing nothing about them. They were the first Congress in about 35 years not to pass a budget last year--and the Senate still has yet to propose one. They're punting on the main drivers of debt.

This is a sideshow.

That you can't see it, or understand the thrust of Ricky's post is symptomatic of your myopia, and not particularly helpful to anyone else.

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

19 May 2011, 1:01 pm

rickyp wrote:

Depriving the US state of taxes every other industry pays due to this preferential treatment

>Steve's right so I'll recognize my probable hyperbole and amend this to say "many if not most" other industries pay

The cost of oil production in Saudi Arabia is already the lowest in the world Steve. Certainly much lower than any US domestic production, foget the expensive situations in the Gulf of Mexico or Alaska. But even though Saudi Arabia enjoys a substantial cost advantage naturally, the Oil Corps managed to get a unique change to the tax code that allowed them to count royalites paid for the oil as "foreign tax paid".
That is unique. And it provides a additional reason why the oil corps prefered expanding the production of oil in Saudi over domestic production. This policy has been in place since Reagan at least. . Hasn't changed.
You'd think Steve that any of the governments since cared about spurring domestic oil production they'd first eliminate this tax break wouldn't you? Not only does it exacerbate the poor competitive position of domestic oil but it deprives the US government of taxes. And it encourages production in Saudi Arabia, filling their coffers with money that isn't flowing into American production companies OR American taxes...
But immediatly the focus is placed on a discriminatory tax policy like this (See that word policy) and the oil companies and their apologists deflect.
Focus on this one tax policy alone Steve and tell me what it contributes positively to your country?

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 15994; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

19 May 2011, 1:07 pm

Steve, the tax breaks also apply to foreign taxes (and that is a subsidy - the US essentially paying the tax bills of companies that operate overseas). hence why they don't promote domestic production.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

19 May 2011, 9:07 pm

danivon wrote:Steve, the tax breaks also apply to foreign taxes (and that is a subsidy - the US essentially paying the tax bills of companies that operate overseas). hence why they don't promote domestic production.

How many other corporations get the same breaks?

Beyond that, you are missing the point: I would vote to end the subsidies for political reasons. Why?

Because it would remove the pathetic fig leaf the Democrats are holding up to cover their naked failure to do anything the American people care about.

With all the "savings" from eliminating the oil tax breaks, what would the deficits be?

Go ahead. I'll wait. I want to be amazed at what great "leadership" the President and Democrats are showing by this "brave" fight against big oil.

:sleep:

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

20 May 2011, 6:32 am

How many other corporations get the same breaks

?

All corporations get to count foreign taxation on profits against their US tax bill. None, get to count the cost of production as taxation excepting oil companies... (Royalties are generally a cost of production in mining..)

Beyond that, you are missing the point: I would vote to end the subsidies for political reasons. Why?
Because it would remove the pathetic fig leaf the Democrats are holding up to cover their naked failure to do anything the American people care about.

Well, this specific taxation policy has contributed to a lowering of domestic production of oil, has contributed to higher deficits, and has contributed to the imbalance in trade. I'm certain most Americans do care about these things. I think they also care about not favouring Saudi industry over American industry, which this policy also contributes towards.
But its hardly Democratic policy since it was brought in under a republican administration and sustained for 30 years by various democratic and republican administrations and congresses...its an American policy.

With all the "savings" from eliminating the oil tax breaks, what would the deficits be?

Lower. And thats a good thing.I
t would contribute to the competitiveness of domestic production as well. Encouraging multi nationals to choose to produce the thousands of oil leases they currently hold in the US but currently won't put into exploration and/or production .

Go ahead. I'll wait. I want to be amazed at what great "leadership" the President and Democrats are showing by this "brave" fight against big oil.

So You aren't supportive of oil subsidies (taxation policie, etc.) as they exist. I think you're criticisms of Obama on this issue are valid. However, lets note that the republicans in congress want to continue the subsidies to the corporations. Where then are you to find a champion for your cause?
Are you as derisive of the republican leadershiop on this issue as Obama?

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

20 May 2011, 9:06 am

rickyp wrote:All corporations get to count foreign taxation on profits against their US tax bill. None, get to count the cost of production as taxation excepting oil companies... (Royalties are generally a cost of production in mining..)

According to this CNN article, the maximum benefit oil companies get is $4B a year. I suspect that some of these are benefits many other companies enjoy. In fact, it appears to me that maybe only $850M are unique, but I could be wrong.

In fact, this analysis claims oil companies get very little that is unique. In fact, the author also notes this:

The above tax "breaks" explain how much tax revenue is not collected from all oil companies. How much is collected?

Exxon recently released its first quarter results for 2011. The number grabbing the headlines was Exxon's profit: $10.65 billion in a single quarter. The number not given quite as much exposure was the taxes it paid in that same quarter: $8 billion, or 42% of income before taxes.

And what does Exxon do with all that money it has left after paying $8 B in taxes? It put $7.8 billion into capital and exploration, as part of its plans "to invest between $33 billion and $37 billion per year over the next five years to develop new energy supplies."

In any other industry, that would be called "research and development." Exxon is plowing 73% of its after-tax profits back into R&D. Who would be better at spending $4 billion of energy companies' earnings in an attempt to provide our energy in the future: the energy companies or Obama's energy czar?

Do you know what oil company does get US subsidies, and not just tax "breaks"? Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil company. According to the Wall Street Journal,

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month [August 2009] with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

Just to re-cap a few pertinent features of these "subsidies" to oil companies that Obama wants to cut.

They are all tax "breaks," or earnings that oil companies get to keep, not money paid out from the US Treasury.
The amount of earnings not collected in taxes is about $4.3 billion per year -- about 0.2% of this year's deficit and enough to fund about 10 hours of current US government spending.
A full $3.55 billion of that amount (82%) is due to the way taxes are treated for all industries or manufacturers. To change these tax laws only for oil companies would require singling them out among all industries for special mistreatment. (I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like a bill of attainder to me, something our Constitution forbids.)
The only tax in which the oil industry seems to get special treatment compared to other industries is intangible drilling costs. The amount of that subsidy? That would be $0.78 billion per year -- enough to fund less than two hours of federal spending in 2011, and not even half the amount we are lending a foreign-owned and state-owned oil company for drilling offshore Brazil.
Oil companies already pay tax rates of 40-50% of income. For one company, Exxon, in one quarter of one year, that amount was over $8 billion, or almost double the so-called tax "subsidy" for all oil companies for an entire year.

If you think oil companies enjoy some special privilege because of the money they throw around Washington, DC, consider that the Oil & Gas industry ranked only 19th in the amount of money contributed to politicians in the 2008 election cycle: $17.7 million. Who was number one? Lawyers, who contributed $126.9 million, or over seven times as much as the Oil & Gas industry. The Education lobby gave $37.4 million, more than twice as much as Oil & Gas.

In any event, let's say that $4B is the mark. I see nothing here that would indicate eliminating them would lower gas prices or increase domestic production--especially since Obama and the EPA have done everything legal (and more) to restrict oil production.

Even at $4B, that still leaves a $1.5T deficit. Where are the efforts to work on that? Let's see: at $4B per cut, the Democrats only have what, about 400 more cuts to make to balance the budget?

Well, this specific taxation policy has contributed to a lowering of domestic production of oil, has contributed to higher deficits, and has contributed to the imbalance in trade.

We have only your word for the first and last. Are you really saying Big Oil has been able to damage the American economy substantively in spite of your Man, Obama, and Pelosi and Reid, being in absolute control of the government for two years? If this is so clear-cut, where were the Democrats???? Why weren't they fighting for this instead of ramming healthcare reform down the throat of the majority?

Also, if they're such budget hawks, why are they borrowing 40 cents of every dollar spent?

In other words, for all the jumping up and down they're doing over AT MOST $4B a year (a figure I doubt), where have they been while racking up record deficits and promising us semi-permanent $1T deficits?

Why is unemployment still so high--in spite of record spending? Why all the environmental restrictions given the economy?

This is the quintessential diversion and the only ones being duped are liberals.

But its hardly Democratic policy since it was brought in under a republican administration and sustained for 30 years by various democratic and republican administrations and congresses...its an American policy.

But, surely, as the most intelligent man to ever live, the President has known about this since, well, since he began his fabled career as a community organizer more than 20 years ago. So, what took so long (more than 2 years) to work on this?

Are you as derisive of the republican leadershiop on this issue as Obama?

No, and for good reason. He has not led on this issue. In fact, the only thing he is out in front on is that Israel needs to concede. Obama's staff has described his style as "leading from behind." That's not leadership--it's cowardice.

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

20 May 2011, 12:56 pm

steve

Are you really saying Big Oil has been able to damage the American economy substantively in spite of your Man, Obama, and Pelosi and Reid, being in absolute control of the government for two years?

Yes. Because its been a policy for 30 years Steve. (Are you seriously defending a taxation policy that favours the Saudis?)
How does one unring the bell? How do you recover the lost taxation for 28 years? How do you alter the competitive status that was in place for 28 years and lead Big Oil to focus their companies primarily on importing oil. decisions have been hade over the last quarter century based on this and similar policies. You didn't get to the trade imbalance and energy imbalance that currently exists over night. It took 30 years of bending to the wishes of big oil.
With imported oil being more profitable, in part because of the favorable taxation policy, Big Oil has been quite happy.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that Obama has done little to address this to date. Or course in the area of oil his administration has had the disaster in the Gulf to deal with, which included the reformation and rehabilitation of the regulatory body that failed so miserably. (MMM) .

Steve

"Why all the environmental restrictions given the economy?"

You are so precious. As if it is impossible to generate jobs and a healthy economy unless the enviroment is being despoiled at the same time.
Would that the MMM had been functioning properly and the regulatory code was stricter and there would have been no BP Spill in the Gulf. Think what that did to the fishing and tourism economies in the Gulf... And as a result of the necessity in reviewing the status of all deep oil wells, also to the oil economy.
The point is that a conservative, cautious and steady exploitation of natural resources can be accomplished. And accomplished profitably without reckless disregard for the environment or for worker safety.
Unfortunately, as history proves time and again, private industries who seek to cut corners in the pursuit of additional profit often are guilty of reckless actions. And generally the disasters are more costly then the preventative measures of which private industry often likes to complain.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

20 May 2011, 1:10 pm

rickyp wrote:steve
Are you really saying Big Oil has been able to damage the American economy substantively in spite of your Man, Obama, and Pelosi and Reid, being in absolute control of the government for two years?

Yes. Because its been a policy for 30 years Steve. (Are you seriously defending a taxation policy that favours the Saudis?)

That would not get the Democrats and Obama off the hook, would it?

You've said it favors the Saudis. Prove it--don't just post your opinion again. Prove it.

How does one unring the bell? How do you recover the lost taxation for 28 years?

Certainly not by continuing the policy for two more years, which is what Democrats did--until it became politically expedient to raise the issue.

You didn't get to the trade imbalance and energy imbalance that currently exists over night. It took 30 years of bending to the wishes of big oil.

And, Big Green. Look at all the nonsensical environmental restrictions we have. We can't even put up solar panels in the Mojave Desert! Farmland lacks for water so we can protect a tiny, insignificant fish. Nuclear power? Too dangerous. Oil? Too dangerous. Natural gas? Destroys the ecology.

We've had the Department of Energy for 30+ years. Is our situation better now or before it was created?

This isn't all Big Oil's fault, no matter how much you pretend it is.

"Why all the environmental restrictions given the economy?"

You are so precious. As if it is impossible to generate jobs and a healthy economy unless the enviroment is being despoiled at the same time.

So, even if there is relatively little risk, we should do nothing and keep people unemployed?

Why are Democrats supporting more drilling? Landrieu? Begich? Do they believe their States will be wrecked more by oil spills or by Obama's moratorium?

: Faxmonkey; Adjutant; Posts: 763; Joined: 18 Jun 2008, 5:49 am

21 May 2011, 2:25 am

GMTom wrote:My point was simple, where is the outrage?
No outrage here, none over the other issues, none when it's Obama.

Bush would blow his nose and the Democrats would cry foul. Those same democrats are now silent and accepting, funny thing how they see what they want to see.
and why is this a conservative issue per Ricky? please enlighten me how this is conservative in any way, the Democrats controlled things for how long and refused to change anything.

As am outsider i will say this: as long as each side is only ever willing to critizize the political opponent and never call the own side out for commited wrongs (be it @#$! the neighbours dog, while preaching about holy matrimony, or taking bribes while crying about the evil corporations, or for supporting subsidies, but only were you like them, etc) out of party loyalty i think your country is @#$!.
It's some sort of pavlovian reflex and it's ubiquitous on FOX, MSNBC, Blogs and the US posters. Plus you tend to project that mindest alot on the Europenas on this forum (that's why you consider us all leftists).
I really think that you guys need to adjust that somehow if you want to move forward in any constructive manner.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 15994; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

21 May 2011, 3:06 am

Fax - indeed. It's pretty childish, isn't it. Witness one poster saying that they would support the proposal, not because it's the right thing to do, but out of what appear to be wholly party political motives, to show up the Democrats.

When supporting a sports team, you expect blind loyalty and partiality, you expect people to ignore fouls by their own players and howl like blue murder at fouls by opponents. But sports is not in any way as important as running a country, least of all the USA. So why this team-colour partisan hackery?

The tax break is an effective subsidy. It give a tax break on not just domestic drilling, but overseas drilling. It costs the US treasury billions of dollars a year. Can we discuss it without denial, or whataboutery? Seems not.

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

21 May 2011, 8:15 am

steve

You've said it favors the Saudis. Prove it--don't just post your opinion again. Prove it.

You're kidding? Have you ever taken a basic business course in school?
Cost in Saudi= cost of oil production
Taxation in Saudi= royalties
US taxation of Saudi production = profits X taxation rate - royalties paid to Saudis

Cost in US = cost of oil production plus cost of royalties.
Taxation in US = profits X taxation rate.

Put any numbers you want in those equations Steve. It provides an additional advantage to the Saudis. They don't need it, of course, since they have the cheapest oil production costs in the world. However, the additional profit generated by importing Saudis versus domestic is additional motivation for Internationals to increase Saudi oil consumption and ignore US production. Which the Internationals have done. There are thousands of unused Amnerican oil leaseholds Steve.
This is the "invisible hand of the market" at work. But exagerated because 30 years ago the oil internationals managed to wheedle that gift (also called taxation policy, subsidy, etc.) out of Congress and the Administration....
US policy was to let the markets decide. So they decided over thirty years that producing oil in the US, was not a priority. They don't care, as multi-nationals, that it means US dollars are exported. They don't care, as mulitnationals, that foreign policy decisions can be affected by a dependence upon imports. They don't care, as multi-nationals, that exploitation of US resources, though more expensive particualrly if appropriate environmental and safety standards are applied, means more Americans working and more money generated in the domestic economy. They go where the biggest profits are going to be added to their bottom line.
And. like as not, that has been the policy of your government since about 1980 in most things involving industry and economy Steve. Not just oil production.
Everything you say about the "tax policy" not being an enormous policy component all by itself is true. But it is emblematic of the abdication of involvement in industrial and trade policy to the major internationals. The internationals didn't need the tax break to be profitable. They didn't make any decisions based on the tax break that would favour the US, indeed they contributed to making decisions that hurt the US. And they hurt the US directly in terms of budget deficits.
The continued defence of these gifts in the face of mounting debt is inherently iresposnsible. And thats what the Senate has just done... Not just republicans, .... Some Democrats who owe their careers to Big Oil are involved too.

Ending ithis tax break would put 2 billion dollars a year into US coffers. No it wouldn't immedialty do anything about the cost of gas at the pumps. Frankly, other than reduced use of fuel through conservation efforts there is nothing elastic enough in the supply chain to effect that with any particular speed.
But ending it would put the debt 2 billion closer to being balanced. And thats a good thing.
And defending it? What would it do for the American production industry Steve to maintain the break? What exactly will a 2 billion dollar a year gift to enormously profitable companies do to affect: the price of gas, the trade imbalance, the debt?

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

21 May 2011, 9:28 am

rickyp wrote:steve
You've said it favors the Saudis. Prove it--don't just post your opinion again. Prove it.

You're kidding? Have you ever taken a basic business course in school?
Cost in Saudi= cost of oil production
Taxation in Saudi= royalties
US taxation of Saudi production = profits X taxation rate - royalties paid to Saudis

Cost in US = cost of oil production plus cost of royalties.
Taxation in US = profits X taxation rate.

Let me be real simple here, Ricky, since you clearly cannot understand my American dialect: don't give me your opinion--give me a real source, Ricky. 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.

Don't just type it again, Ricky, using different words.

For example, I think there is some merit to the argument that doing away with tax breaks (nee "subsidies") would cost American jobs. But, I'm not just going to say it:

The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA, the industry trade group of the “independent” producer segment of the oil and gas industry) estimates that loss of these tax benefits might lead to budget cuts on the order of 20 to 35% across the industry. Independents conduct 93% of domestic drilling, a figure quite at odds with the popular notion that domestic energy is “Big Oil’s” game. The tax breaks help many independents raise money to fund their projects; loss of favorable tax treatment might translate to 10,000 to 15,000 fewer wells drilled per year in the U.S.

Ending a US tax deduction considered crucial to independent oil and natural gas producers would cost Devon Energy about $1 billion in the first year, the company told a House of Representatives panel Friday. “That would equate to our complete drilling program in the Barnett Shale,” said William Whitsitt, executive vice president for the Oklahoma gas driller. “That looks to us like it’s a totally wrongheaded policy that would penalize companies that are most efficient at producing resources that power the nation.” … Stephen Layton, president of E&B Natural Resources, a small oil producer in the San Joaquin Valley, said talk of eliminating the deduction ignores the fact that companies like his reinvest most of their earnings, which creates jobs and increases domestic energy security. California Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, Republican-Bakersfield, called the tax proposals a “full-out assault” on the industry. “For every barrel of oil that we cannot produce here, we are importing from a volatile foreign nation,” she said. “Why are we as Americans relying so much on energy from foreign nations?”

There are thousands of unused Amnerican oil leaseholds Steve.

Yes there are, Ricky. Do you know why, Ricky?

Among other reasons, Ricky, is that, Ricky, the independent companies, Ricky, are uncertain there actually is oil in sufficient quantities in some leases to turn a profit, Ricky. Do you understand that, Ricky?

Did you take any business courses, Ricky? If a company doubts it can make a profit, Ricky, they won't take the risk, Ricky.

Some Democrats who owe their careers to Big Oil are involved too.

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

Ending ithis tax break would put 2 billion dollars a year into US coffers. No it wouldn't immedialty do anything about the cost of gas at the pumps.

Ricky, that's only true, if, Ricky, it costs no jobs. And, given the tens of TRILLIONS of dollars of unfunded liabilities and debt we're struggling with, isn't this really, at best, like hoping to warm yourself in outer space by striking a match? And that is, Ricky, if you are 100% correct, which, Ricky, is a dubious proposition.

Ricky, if nothing else, I hope we can agree that using someone's name over and over again is exceedingly annoying. Right, Ricky?

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

21 May 2011, 9:35 am

danivon wrote:Fax - indeed. It's pretty childish, isn't it. Witness one poster saying that they would support the proposal, not because it's the right thing to do, but out of what appear to be wholly party political motives, to show up the Democrats.

Is this Redscape, or Twitter?

I only ask because that was definitely twittish.

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.

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

:no:

Beyond that, it is clearly a smokescreen. If it was soooooo vital, why didn't the Democrats pass it in 2009 or 2010? Where are their proposals to rein in the deficit? This is not a serious proposal as it would get us what--a .001% savings on the deficit? That is worth expending all this time and energy on? Really?

And, that's if everything Ricky dreams about comes true.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

21 May 2011, 9:37 am

Btw, if I wanted to waste the time, I suspect I could find Democrats and left-leaning posters here saying that cutting ethanol subsidies, green subsidies, etc., aren't worthwhile because they wouldn't save that much money. So . . . $2B (max--if no American jobs are lost) is supposed to be vital?

61 posts • Page 2 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Exclusive tax breaks for big oil