GannonFan wrote:Sure, let's do it. Doesn't matter much though. So we save anywhere from $1B to $4B (can't even seem to find agreement on that) up front, and pay a little of that back at the pump. Even if we don't pay any of it back in terms of higher prices, that means we have now lopped off a grand total of 0.05% of the total budget for the year. So really, not much changes, but we get to feel like we did something important.
And when all is said and done, the oil companies will continue to make loads and loads of money (although at measely profit margins compared to really any other industry that's still in business), we'll not be any better off economically than we were before we did this, and we won't be any closer to coming up with a economically viable alternative to oil than we were before. Again, it's not like people don't want to find an alternative and it's not like people aren't working on finding alternatives - it's the unfortunate fact that none exists today and picking and choosing which companies get which tax breaks and which don't, and arbitrarily picking those companies based on what is politically expedient at the time, doesn't change that.
So yeah, let's do it. It makes us feel good even if it doesn't make a lick of difference in the debt or the oil companies profits or how much we spend (in supporting tax breaks or what we pay at the pump). At least this gets us one step closer to the real issues rather than getting hung up on such an inconsequential topic like this. Besides, I like feeling good.
Someone needs to brief the President on the definition of a "subsidy".
Just a couple of questions:
What tax breaks does "big oil" get that other corporations don't?
Why should the "record profits" from "big oil", who pay (on average) a 45% effective tax rate be treated so much differently than Apple's "record profits" who pays an effective tax rate of 24% ?
I didn't realize those 2 questions were so difficult.
Pwns wrote:LoL. "Oil subsidies are keeping green energy from competing in the marketplace! Oh, but don't worry, they're so small that eliminating them will have a negligible effect on gas prices."
Probably a dumb comment, if you consider all of the indirect subsidies, gas prices are artificially low.
You keep bringing this up, but never give any details to substantiate it. What are the indirect subsidies and how much of those should be specifically tied to oil? Details tend to be helpful.
kalm wrote:
Probably a dumb comment, if you consider all of the indirect subsidies, gas prices are artificially low.
You keep bringing this up, but never give any details to substantiate it. What are the indirect subsidies and how much of those should be specifically tied to oil? Details tend to be helpful.
Gas prices are low because we decided a long time ago as a country to invest in infrastructure and foreign policy to support it. Throw in environmental costs, health costs, and royalty free extraction on private lands and yes, oil has been heavily subsidized all along. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have, but you have to admit that from a market standpoint, oil has been granted and continues to benefit from some government supported advantages.
I can go into more detail if you like, but I'm pretty sure I have before.
GannonFan wrote:
You keep bringing this up, but never give any details to substantiate it. What are the indirect subsidies and how much of those should be specifically tied to oil? Details tend to be helpful.
Gas prices are low because we decided a long time ago as a country to invest in infrastructure and foreign policy to support it. Throw in environmental costs, health costs, and royalty free extraction on private lands and yes, oil has been heavily subsidized all along. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have, but you have to admit that from a market standpoint, oil has been granted and continues to benefit from some government supported advantages.
I can go into more detail if you like, but I'm pretty sure I have before.
How much do aircraft carriers cost, again?
Our expensive fleets are protecting oil lanes but they also have those danged nukular reactors on board. Gubmint's buying them alternative power reactors and destroying the oil industry. Ain't like there's a diesel engine on board like the good old days.
Come to think of it, there ain't one of them solar powered or 'lectric engines supporting those flattops neither. Somethin's fishy, I tell ya'.
GannonFan wrote:
You keep bringing this up, but never give any details to substantiate it. What are the indirect subsidies and how much of those should be specifically tied to oil? Details tend to be helpful.
Gas prices are low because we decided a long time ago as a country to invest in infrastructure and foreign policy to support it. Throw in environmental costs, health costs, and royalty free extraction on private lands and yes, oil has been heavily subsidized all along. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have, but you have to admit that from a market standpoint, oil has been granted and continues to benefit from some government supported advantages.
I can go into more detail if you like, but I'm pretty sure I have before.
The reason we have such a big overseas foreign policy when it comes to oil is because the enviros have blocked us from producing so much more of our own in the US. If the govt decades ago had started allowing exploration & drilling off both coasts, in more than 1/2 the gulf, in the Beaufort & Chukchi off Alaska, on more fed lands, in the National Petroleum Preserve Alaska, in ANWER, etc, etc, then maybe we wouldn't have to have a foreign policy to support it.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
BDKJMU wrote:
The reason we have such a big overseas foreign policy when it comes to oil is because the enviros have blocked us from producing so much more of our own in the US. If the govt decades ago had started allowing exploration & drilling off both coasts, in more than 1/2 the gulf, in the Beaufort & Chukchi off Alaska, on more fed lands, in the National Petroleum Preserve Alaska, in ANWER, etc, etc, then maybe we wouldn't have to have a foreign policy to support it.
We pay farmers not to grow things so that we can artificially keep price of food up. Hell, the Supreme Court defended the government's ability to tell farmers to not grow things. What makes you think anyone in government, or in the private sector, has any interest in developing enough oil to drive down prices?
GannonFan wrote:
You keep bringing this up, but never give any details to substantiate it. What are the indirect subsidies and how much of those should be specifically tied to oil? Details tend to be helpful.
Gas prices are low because we decided a long time ago as a country to invest in infrastructure and foreign policy to support it. Throw in environmental costs, health costs, and royalty free extraction on private lands and yes, oil has been heavily subsidized all along. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have, but you have to admit that from a market standpoint, oil has been granted and continues to benefit from some government supported advantages.
I can go into more detail if you like, but I'm pretty sure I have before.
The oil companies don't get royalty free extraction on private lands they don't own. They pay royalties to whoever owns that land.
The state & fed govts get a tremendous amount of $ from royalties from the extraction that is allowed on a limited amount of govt owned land and limited offshore (mostly in only a portion of the gulf). And they get a tremendous amount of tax revenue from the oil & natual gas companies and the hundreds of thousands of employees they employ. That covers a lot these $ costs you are referring to.
And the govt would get A LOT MORE $$$ in the way of royalties and taxes if opened up more fed lands and offshore.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
GannonFan wrote:
You keep bringing this up, but never give any details to substantiate it. What are the indirect subsidies and how much of those should be specifically tied to oil? Details tend to be helpful.
Gas prices are low because we decided a long time ago as a country to invest in infrastructure and foreign policy to support it. Throw in environmental costs, health costs, and royalty free extraction on private lands and yes, oil has been heavily subsidized all along. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have, but you have to admit that from a market standpoint, oil has been granted and continues to benefit from some government supported advantages.
I can go into more detail if you like, but I'm pretty sure I have before.
The federal government may not get anything from private lands but states do, ND gets 11.5% and the state produces a lot of oil. Other states have extraction taxes as well.
kalm wrote:
Gas prices are low because we decided a long time ago as a country to invest in infrastructure and foreign policy to support it. Throw in environmental costs, health costs, and royalty free extraction on private lands and yes, oil has been heavily subsidized all along. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have, but you have to admit that from a market standpoint, oil has been granted and continues to benefit from some government supported advantages.
I can go into more detail if you like, but I'm pretty sure I have before.
The federal government may not get anything from private lands but states do, ND gets 11.5% and the state produces a lot of oil. Other states have extraction taxes as well.
Yeah, that's my bad. I meant public lands and was thinking of federal leases on mining.
kalm wrote:
Gas prices are low because we decided a long time ago as a country to invest in infrastructure and foreign policy to support it. Throw in environmental costs, health costs, and royalty free extraction on private lands and yes, oil has been heavily subsidized all along. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have, but you have to admit that from a market standpoint, oil has been granted and continues to benefit from some government supported advantages.
I can go into more detail if you like, but I'm pretty sure I have before.
The reason we have such a big overseas foreign policy when it comes to oil is because the enviros have blocked us from producing so much more of our own in the US. If the govt decades ago had started allowing exploration & drilling off both coasts, in more than 1/2 the gulf, in the Beaufort & Chukchi off Alaska, on more fed lands, in the National Petroleum Preserve Alaska, in ANWER, etc, etc, then maybe we wouldn't have to have a foreign policy to support it.
We were overthrowing Middle East governments on behalf of oil long before there ever was an environmental movement. And I would like see the estimates for unrestricted domestic extraction. And from a legit source.
kalm wrote:
Gas prices are low because we decided a long time ago as a country to invest in infrastructure and foreign policy to support it. Throw in environmental costs, health costs, and royalty free extraction on private lands and yes, oil has been heavily subsidized all along. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have, but you have to admit that from a market standpoint, oil has been granted and continues to benefit from some government supported advantages.
I can go into more detail if you like, but I'm pretty sure I have before.
The reason we have such a big overseas foreign policy when it comes to oil is because the enviros have blocked us from producing so much more of our own in the US. If the govt decades ago had started allowing exploration & drilling off both coasts, in more than 1/2 the gulf, in the Beaufort & Chukchi off Alaska, on more fed lands, in the National Petroleum Preserve Alaska, in ANWER, etc, etc, then maybe we wouldn't have to have a foreign policy to support it.
Yeah, it's all them hippies and their enormous political power that are keeping the price of gasoline high....
Crude oil is plentiful. The bottleneck is at the refining stage, where the profits are concentrated.
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
houndawg wrote:Oil is a vital strategic resource and should be nationalized yesterday.
Whatever you say, Comrade.
JMU Football:
4 Years FBS: 40-11 (.784). Highest winning percentage & least losses of all of G5 2022-2025.
Sun Belt East Champions: 2022, 2023, 2025
Sun Belt Champions: 2025
Top 25 ranked: 2022, 2023, 2025
CFP: 2025
Conks ain't got a leg to stand on in this oil thing. It's more protected than the tax-free religious fucks in America.
There is NO answer to all this shit. Again, I ask - what are Conks doing to prepare for when the oil and gas run out? One hundred years of natural gas left? Howzabout your great-grandchildren? Whatcha doin' for their energy needs?
