GOP uses filibuster to block ending Oil Company welfare

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, May 18, 2011.

  1. mcrain, May 18, 2011
    Last edited: May 18, 2011

    mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    WTF? Why is the mainstream media not pointing out the continued constant use of the filibuster by the minority party to block legislation that actually could end $20 Billion Dollars of corporate welfare?

    Gotta love Fox News... as expected my **s.
     
  2. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
  3. Queen of Spades macrumors 68030

    Queen of Spades

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Location:
    The Iron Throne
    #3
    Me too. It's such a ridiculous, outdated device. When you think about it, it's absurd that not only does it exist, but that it has the power to actually affect legislation.

    It's one of my biggest pet peeves about government.
     
  4. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #4
    I tend to like it only when the party I support is in the minority. Otherwise, it's totally wrong and should be eliminated immediately.

    (No. It shouldn't be eliminated. It should be reformed.)
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #5
    That corporate welfare is reduced taxes, right? The taxes come from profits, right?

    Profits provide the capital for investment in future exploration and ongoing development. Higher taxes mean less money and thus less exploration and development.

    Is that what you want? $200 oil and $6 gasoline? $7 diesel for the trucks which deliver your food to the A & Poo feed store or your friendly Hoggly-Woggly? And higher prices for grains for those poverty-stricken countries?

    Why aren't folks upset at the tax-dollar subsidies to the big investment banks, now amounting to trilions, not "lousy" little billions. Me, I figure I need Exxon a helluva lot more than I need Goldman Sucks or JP Morgue. GS & JPM don't put any diesel in my 50 mpg Rabbit pickemup.
     
  6. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    So...Big Oil should make record profits while gouging their customers AND getting huge tax breaks?

    Really? Come on, 'Rat. This is the kind of s*** that's killing our country.

    And by development, what would you be referring to? Development like the last oil spill? Yeah, they sure are doing their part.
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    Profits are what's left over after you've exhausted every option to hide [legally] your income.

    Research and Development doesn't come out of profits.

    It's already been accounted for as an expense.

    Profits are on top of that.
     
  8. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #8
    those tax breaks need to go but lets face it they would never pass the house. On top of that ever dem from the some of the Oil states would vote against them. I know that there are several Dems from Houston that vote for 2 things all the time. NASA and big oil. Not that it should surprise you considering guess what the 2 biggest employers in the south Houston area are.
     
  9. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #9
    Because this isn't a discussion about banks. Banks, or any financial institution, shouldn't get any sort of subsidy, either.

    But to support Big Oil getting subsidies when they are already profiting in the billions, because to end the subsidies would somehow HURT them...I don't understand how you people think like this. You go against any program that helps poor people or just people and society in general, but violently attack ending any program that funnels money to an already highly-profitable sector of society. Your priorities are seriously skewed.

    NO mega-priftable business should be getting regular subsidies. It seriously blows my mind that in the days of budget-cut talks you want to keep throwing free government money at a profitable enterprise. :confused: :confused:

    This is why we are in the state we are in: people of your ilk keep persuading others to believe that to stop things like this will cost jobs and kill the economy. It's just BS, but it somehow works.
     
  10. IntelliUser macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Location:
    Why does it matter?
    #10
    And the latest Gallup poll says the higher gas prices are also making Americans pollute less, buy more fuel efficient cars and even do more physical activity. That's such a disaster!:rolleyes:
    [​IMG]
     
  11. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #11
    If we end the government subsidies to the oil companies, they'll be forced to work that much harder...just like all of those lazy people who rely on welfare. </snark>

    Personally, I think subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies should be directly proportional to how much money they invest in renewable energy technologies.

    Out of curiosity, anybody know why oil companies are eligible for subsidies in the first place? Is it just oil companies or are other energy companies eligible, too?
     
  12. MattSepeta, May 18, 2011
    Last edited: May 18, 2011

    MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #12
    Anyone care to link to a source that shows the "subsidies" the big bad oil companies receive?

    PS- Deductions do not count. Unless you want to end deductions to all businesses... Myself, along with hundreds of thousands of fellow small business owners would really hate to see the government start picking and choosing which companies "deserve" deductions...

    PPS- EDIT- Exxon Mobile made 2 cents per gallon profit last quarter. The federal government "makes" 18.4 cents per gallon, with state governments "making" between 20 and 40 cents per gallon. How is THAT for "gouging"?

    PPPS- Last quarter apple posted a 23. something percent profit margin. Exxon posted under 10% IIRC. Why dont we legislate Apple into ending this "gouging".

    PPPPS- You are out of your mind if you think the oil companies can simply wave their wand and reduce the cost of gas. If it was really at their whim, why aren't we paying $15 per gallon? Hell, $99 per gallon?

    :rolleyes: And to think, people wonder why democrats get pegged as anti-business... HA
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    If you can take the time to post all that, surely you can go look up what subsidies all the oil companies get, with sources. Don't ask us to spoon feed you.
     
  14. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #14
    Googled, can't find any subsidies.

    Plenty of tax deductions, which all business are able to (and should continue to be able to) capitalize on.

    Sounds like you simply just don't know, and are parroting a party line....

    "Oil companies get too much subsidies! ARGHHHH!"
     
  15. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15
    Ohhhh, so just because a tax break can be called a tax break, it must not be a subsidy? Are you really honestly trying to argue that big oil doesn't get massive breaks from the government based on symantics.

    Here's an article: I merely googled big oil subsidies and came up with tons of answers...

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

    If you would like to debate an issue on its merits, not linguistics, I'll be back tomorrow.

    So, a subsidy can be in the form of a deduction...
     
  16. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    No- you asked the question and expected us to do your homework, and then made assertions based on absolutely nothing.

    Oh look- somebody did your homework for you above.
     
  17. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #17
    The subsidies are extra tax breaks they've been getting (Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron Corp., and Conoco Phillips). About 2 billion a year for over 10 years equalling about $21 billion. The savings would help with the budget.
     
  18. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    In most of the world oil companies pay extra taxes. Only in the USA would they get a subsidy :rolleyes:.
     
  19. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #19
    At the risk of repeating posts on another thread, that is because the U.S. needs oil to maintain their dominance around the World.

    This will not change.
     
  20. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #20
    Well, I'd argue that both the financial industry and the oil industry use the same arguments to bolster their case, the financial guys are just a bit better at it. Both argue that government subsidy is important to maintain prices and their business—and their business is America's business—and yet, they should also be unregulated and unfettered.

    As currently structured, the economy depends on the movement of money through the large banks, without it, even the oil companies will have trouble making those fabulous investments in R&D.

    I don't see why the feds can't institute a system similar to Alaska's ACES program, which taxes oil companies at a 25 percent base rate, which then rises above $52-per-barrel by .02 per dollar. It's effectively a progressive system.

    Additionally, the more exploration the companies do, the less they'll pay in taxes.
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    hulugu, the gripe about the oil companies is about money not paid in, right? Foregone income? The investment banks are making their profits from zero-interest-rate use of YOUR already-paid-in tax dollars.

    That use, deriving from the stimulus packages--currently "QE2"--is a large part of the cause of the degradation of the buying power of the US dollar, which is a large part of why oil is $100/bbl and gasoline is $4/gallon. But, it's all going quite well, in line with Obama's campaign trail call for higher gasoline prices. It's his view of the proper way to reduce demand. His policies for energy are quite effective in this increase in prices.

    But making accusations against "Big Oil" is an easy way to divert public
    attention from causal relationships. Red herrings and all that.

    From Post #7: "Research and Development doesn't (sic) come out of profits."

    Where else can the money come from, if not from the income from sales exceeding the daily operating costs of running the business? How do you begin a new billion-dollar project if you don't have profits? A new project is not part of any already-existing operating cost.
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    You ask, "how do you begin a new billion-dollar project if you don't have profits?" How does any business begin any project? If profits had to precede production, nobody would ever get anything done.

    As for R&D not coming out of profits, here is an excerpt from a financial-education.com, (Everything You Need To Know About Finance) page titled, Research and Development Expense ...


    Research is the process of searching for new knowledge, while development is the process of translating this knowledge into a plan or design for a new process or product. In some industries, (for example, pharmaceuticals) these activities are essential for future revenues and profitability.

    Some companies do not record a separate line item for research and development expenses. To the extent that they do incur such expenses they are probably lumped into selling, general, and administrative expenses but would be disclosed in a footnote. Companies that are more reliant on research will generally report it separately. Both International Accounting Standards (IAS) and United States GAAP require research to be expensed as incurred. US GAAP also requires development to be expensed while IAS 9 permits development costs to be capitalized as an asset if certain requirements are met.


    And here's an example from an article, Do Accounting Rules Discourage Research & Development? ...

    Example. Mizer pharmaceutical has in the last five years spent $65 million on research and testing of a male enhancement pill that actually works and can garner FDA approval. The five years of research and development outlays has lead to the development of an effective pill that they will market and patent under the trade name Mirakle Grow. Market research indicates that it will generate at least $1 billion in sales annually as long as they hold the exclusive patent.

    Since the R & D outlays have lead to the development of a pill that will generate significant revenue over several years you would expect that the outlays would be classified as assets rather than period expenses. Well you would be wrong. In fact, accounting rules require that R & D costs be treated as expenses rather than assets even though these outlays clearly are intended to benefit future accounting periods. There are two reasons why accounting rules treat R & D outlays as expenses.

    First it is a cruel fact of life that not all R & D outlays lead to the development of marketable products. In fact a relatively low percentage of such outlays lead to successful products. For example, it may turn out that the Mirakle Grow drug has adverse side effects that would preclude FDA approval.
     
  23. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    Ok, it is clear that you have some basic misunderstanding of the terms being used.

    You really should look up the difference between: Gross profit, net profit, adjusted gross income and net taxable income.

    R&D (along with all expenses) are subtracted from gross profit resulting in net profit.

    R&D (along with other deductible expenses) are subtracted from AGI, thus reducing the taxable income (and resulting taxes if any).
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    Never let a lack of understanding get in the way of giving an opinion. ;)
     
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    You keep tossing that ball in the air as if I won't hit it. I think the CEOs of Goldman Sachs should be prosecuted for fraud, I have no particular love for the banks who are misusing the massive stimulus to line their own pockets and if there was a presidential candidate who was prepared to bust their balls, I'd vote for her.

    That said, the oil companies are getting a tax break to spur their business. Their business is booming, ergo, they don't need special tax breaks.

    I don't mind rising oil prices because I think gas is underpriced when considering its social and environmental consequences, however, I'm worried that the rise in gas prices will also stall the US economy undercutting the dollar and creating a feedback loop that will hurt everyone.

    Meanwhile, other analysts are arguing that speculation and not demand is driving up prices.

    I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that oil prices are only increasing because of inflationary pressure on the dollar.

    We are running a $1.4 trillion deficit, but leaving $20 billion in subsidies on the table.

    Aren't R&D costs deductible? So, that would come out before taxable income. More R&D means a lower tax bill even if we rearrange the subsidy like the ACES program.
     

Share This Page