Ending Tax Breaks for Big Oil
 

How this gonna play out? The Dems wanting to curtail tax breaks to Big Oil during a time in which they are enjoying record profits, yet the GOP opposes it (in favor of Medicare cuts). Is this gonna bite the GOP in the @ss or is their "no tax hikes on this poor little industry" rhetoric gonna carry the day?

When revenue is close to all time lows, and the oil companies don't need special treatment any more, it will be hard to sustain an argument against the cessation of this give away. Don't forget that the increased price of gasoline makes the oil companies even more vulnerable.

Regards,

D-Ray

Buchanan mentioned on the McLaughlin Group that Exxon made 8 cents on the dollar last year. 8%? That's mighty thin.

The price of gas cuts both ways. If you cut the breaks, and gas goes up - guess what people think?

Pete

I think Harold Ford Jr has some reasonable points, but will this article prompt forum members to finally stop demonizing the oil industry (or any other industry for that matter)?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

Doubt it! :)

Considering all the businesses closing their doors in this economy I would say they are doing pretty good.

Buchanan lol. :p




Carl

lol, this has as much chance as single payer had

did you even read this?

and to answer your question, I hope the hell none of us here stop demonizing the demon.

... and I think killing Agricultural subsidies has even less of a chance (to the point of not even the point-seeking Dems will touch it).

Why is it punitive to eliminate an exception from the obligation to pay taxes? I thought the right was fighting against using tax policy to advance public policies.

I'm all for the review of the regulations. As I recall, that is going on for all departments. If a regulation is out-dated, eliminate. If a regulation provides protection for the public or the environment, enforce it. If an industry practice is causing harm, regulate it.

I doubt that the wisest public policy now is to deplete our oil reserves. The development of alternative energy sources - and conservation strategies - should be a higher priority than drill baby drill.

Regards,

D-Ray

Of course I did. Did you? You'd prefer to subsidize our pursuit of a questionable domestic energy strategy, and continue to enrich foreign oil interests, on the backs of working families who can least afford to pay inflated prices for gasoline, heating oil and oil - based products?

You'd also prefer to subsidize our pursuit of a questionable domestic energy strategy, and continue to enrich foreign oil interests, on the backs of working families who can least afford to pay inflated prices for gasoline, heating oil and oil - based products?

As far as depleting US reserves, reports vary, but most estimates place our oil reserves between 100 and 200 years of supply. Meanwhile, the administration continues to drag its feet allowing permits for drilling to proceed in the Gulf.

it's one of the few links that you submitted that I read, I generally know better as I used to read them all the time and discovered that you did not.

the rest of your post is just a lot of crap as usual

just twisted bs rather than a real exchange

As you should know i don't play unravel whell's posts

No I do not accept that characterization. I would have, years ago, changed the emphasis from highway building, tax credits for oil companies, military action in the middle east, and support of suburban sprawl. I still think a critical part of energy policy needs to be to provide more alternatives to automobile transportation. Rather than making infrastructure investment in highways, make infrastructure investment in creative approaches to mass transit. Create incentive to slow down the sprawl by providing seed money for urban housing - not federal housing projects but attractive middle class housing. (notice I said seed money rather than tax credits)

We don't need to provide additional incentive to drill baby drill. As long as there is money to be made in drilling oil, it will be drilled. We need to direct the incentive toward conservation.

Regards,

D-Ray

Not if we have an administration intent on blocking drilling.

And, as usual, you just dismiss the post as "crap" without offering any substantive rebuttal.

How much of this 100 to 200 year supply that you cite is offshore?

Regards,

D-Ray

I'd be interested in learning how the tax savings the various oil companies have enjoyed compares to the amount of the bribes they have paid to Arab dictators.:confused: I know that Gaddafi got a big chunk of the cash.

Regards,

D-Ray

Hey guys whats up?

I'm thinking there is just no incentive for lower prices or reduced consumption.
Who would they tax to make up for all the lost tax revenue? At first it seemed
a bad thing for citizens to get reamed by high gas prices. Now they are
spoiled by the increased taxes and kickbacks. And Democrats are just as
guilty as the Republicans.

maybe reread your post and if you still can't figure it out ask around.

Hint, you continually make a completely bogus statement to be countered rather than allow for true dialog.

It's a waste of time.

I might disagree with the others posters on the right but we communicate and don't waste time screwing around distorting fact.

Hey Jack, Good to see you and your meticulous spacing of your posts back
around.:) There has certainly been some bad energy policy, and Democrats
haven't done anything to reverse it over the years. What I wasn't clear
about from your post is whether you think that conservation should be
a priority. Also, do you think that there is any benefit to continuing the
subsidies to the oil companies and to agribusiness?

Regards,

D-Ray

Yawn...

Most of it is inland in the form of oil shale spread out over Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. Accessing and processing oil shale is very feasible, but not profitable unless the price of crude on the world market is sustained above $70 per barrel. At today's prices, $70 / barrel seems like bargain, but it's unlikely that local companies will invest in oil shale extraction and processing until or unless the $70 threshold is sustainable.

Or, maybe it would have been a better idea, rather than sending $20 billion to Brazil to help fund their off shore drilling operations, we could have kept that money at home to fund our own energy security, and kick-start domestic production of oil from oil shale?

So, you would drill just to spite them?:rolleyes:

Dave

I just think that when a fuel source is non-renewable it makes more sense to use up someone elses supply before you tap your your own, in the long run. And that it makes even more sense to continue researching other potential sources while you're at it.

But, then, I'm one of those stupid people who tries to look ahead 50, 100 or 1,000 years, rather than be reactionary and do what is temporal and expedient, future be damned.

Dave

Actually, I'm not real excited about the risk of fouling Brazil's shoreline either. Of course the only thing that's important in life is making sure everything is profitable. If someone makes a profit, no need to worry about the collateral damage.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes, conservation is always a good thing and "we" seem to be the worst
offenders. I say we lower the speed limit and raise the fines to 1,000 bucks
with that money going towards a clean energy package run by someone
honest enough to make it work. It would be like a volunteer tax
paid mostly by the people you guys think should pay more anyway.

The oil companies have us by the balls and until there is an alternative they
call the shots. Not sure about the agribusiness, it probably started out as
a good thing.

I think the sooner we can dam up some more rivers, make solar panels
more affordable and move to electric smaller cars the better. But, that
would lower tax revenue and who would the government leach off of then?

Your question assumes that the Administration is correct in their strategy of blocking drilling, which is resulting in tightening domestic oil supply and increasing the price. The strategy makes no sense in light of the facts presented, so your question doesn't make sense.

The strategy does not fit within your priorities. That does not mean it does not make sense, it just doesn't satisfy you.

Regards,

D-Ray

A strategy of "using up someone elses supply" might have been OK years ago. But every president since Nixon has made some attempt to increase domestic energy supply and has come up short. I wonder why that is? :rolleyes:

As far as researching potential alternative sources, I'm all for it. But there's no reason why such research can't continue while we move toward energy independence via increasing domestic supply.

Does it make sense, to use an analogy, to starve yourself while there's a full plate of food in front of you and the fridge is fully stocked? Does it make sense to tolerate continued volatility in the middle east, and the foreign policy idiocy and adventurism that leads to, when we can extricate ourselves from a big chunk of it by increasing domestic oil supply? Does it make sense to tolerate rising oil prices, while are now starting to fuel inflation in everything from the gas pump to food to finished goods, when we can increase domestic supply?

As much as it make sense, to use an analogy, for an alcoholic to continue to drink scotch, a diabetic to continue to drink coke.

That analogy assumes there would be some harm to the country for a failure to move off oil, and/or increasing domestic supply. In fact, just the opposite is true. We're seeing the "harm" already from a failure to pursue a more rational energy strategy that includes increasing domestic supply of not just oil but natural gas as well.

Well we could drill here and there's plenty of oil here But, no one wants to
see more rigs from the beach. I can count about 40 blinking lights in the gulf
just south of Orange Beach now and we see how the deep water wells worked
out down there.
We could drill onshore in south Alabama but that would make some poor dirt
farmers down there filthy rich instead of Big Oil and we can't have that. Who
would we sell our worn out arms to if the sheiks were not rich or stupid
enough to buy them? We could fake or bluff drilling like Bush did and that
would lower the price but then people are gonna keep driving 8000 pound
suv's to pick up a loaf of bread.
I say we double the price of gasoline to force consumers into making changes
in their buying/ spending habits and tripple the taxes on imported crap and
diesel fuel making it more cost friendly to buy/ build/ trade local than truck it
across the world.

Carl, I'll have one of those scotch and cokes. Thanks

Now you're making sense. But, double, the price of gas?.......uh, give me time to lose these two gas hogs first.......:p

Dave

Does it make sense to order grilled chicken and vegetables when your buddy orders chicken-fried steak and mashed potatoes. Does it make sense to walk a mile to the pub instead of jumping into the SUV to run over. There are alternatives that are not quite as enjoyable or convenient, but will be better for you in the long run.

Regards,

D-Ray

Dadgummit. Beat me to the punch. :D Good point.
I type too slow and gab too much.

Regards,

D-Ray

Every decision has consequences. In this case, I strongly suspect that doubling the price of gas would drive inflation in a big way. In fact, as I've observed earlier, I suspect that our decisions about energy strategy in the last 2 years have significantly impacted current prices: to use your example, we may already be paying inflated gasoline prices which are forcing buying / spending habits.

Again, at what expense must we make ill - timed, ill - considered decisions to implement a solution that really isn't accompanied by a problem (or at least a problem that we've contributed to)?

Here are some facts (should anyone wish to consider them in their arguments):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...utG_story.html

Starting last weekend, I began using my bicycle and a backpack to run nearly ALL of my local errands. Post office, doctors office, library, video store, hardware store, shopping and even light grocery shopping. Already I've lost four pounds and feel a bit more energetic. My car doesn't leave the driveway unless it's more than five miles away, or the objects I'm picking up are too cumbersome to fit in the backpack or the weather is bad.

I'm actually beginning to enjoy this.:)

Dave