Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Obama renews call to cut 'big oil' subsidies

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another issue sure to be divided by partisan lines. Conks who were for it before are now going to be against it.

If Obama suggested it, conks will reject it.


End of story.

Without reading the whole thing (sorry, dont' have time), I am all for cutting anyone off the teet of the american people.

"With record profits and rising production, I'm not worried about the big oil companies," Obama said shortly before a scheduled Senate vote on the issue. "... I think it's time they got by without more help from taxpayers who are having a tough enough time paying their bills and filling up their tanks."

Just what exactly does Obama think will happen to gas prices when/if he cuts off the subsidies?

I look at it more for post-election 2013. Congress has to get serious about it's budget & our debt, yea remember those topics?

There is no magic bullet that cures everything, it will take most likely a couple hundred things combined to cut government waste &/or increase revenue. This would be one item to add to the list. With Exxon Mobil making record 8-digit quarterly profits, it's hard for a sane person to argue against it....

AZGrizFan wrote:

"With record profits and rising production, I'm not worried about the big oil companies," Obama said shortly before a scheduled Senate vote on the issue. "... I think it's time they got by without more help from taxpayers who are having a tough enough time paying their bills and filling up their tanks."

Just what exactly does Obama think will happen to gas prices when/if he cuts off the subsidies?

Told ya.

bluehenbillk wrote:I look at it more for post-election 2013. Congress has to get serious about it's budget & our debt, yea remember those topics?

There is no magic bullet that cures everything, it will take most likely a couple hundred things combined to cut government waste &/or increase revenue. This would be one item to add to the list. With Exxon Mobil making record 8-digit quarterly profits, it's hard for a sane person to argue against it....

Not really. Exxon's profit margin is 7.73%. Which means it keeps 7.73 cents of every dollar of revenue generated. The reason they make so much money is they sell a fuck-ton of gas and related products.

And if we REALLY want to reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline, we ought to have the government reduce it's 48 cents/gallon tax (a number which is already outdated, I believe)

Wedgebuster wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Just what exactly does Obama think will happen to gas prices when/if he cuts off the subsidies?

Told ya.

Told ya WHAT? I'm not necessarily for it or against it...I just wonder what Obama thinks will happen to gas prices if "taxpayers are having a tough enough time....filling up their tanks" if they were to suddenly end the subsidies? To whom does he think the oil companies will pass on that reduction in revenue (and profit margin)?

Perhaps if we could get the GOVERNMENT to get their hands out of our pockets (see the tax post above), we'd have a better shot at seeing gas prices drop.

Go for it. Save the treasury $4 billion.

While we are at it let's end the subsidies for wind, solar, ethanol, etc. Let's end the subsidies to unions, i.e. Davis Bacon Act. Let's end the subsidies to people that buy hybrid cars. I could go on and on.

I would like someone to explain the logic of how this will lower gas prices.

-
Looks like the Dem controled Senate isn't in

Senate rejects Obama demand for end to oil tax breaks
The Washington Times ^ | March 29, 2012 | Susan Crabtree



President Obama on Thursday called for Congress to jettison $4 billion in annual subsidies to oil and gas companies, but minutes later the Senate blocked just such a proposal.

The 51-47 vote, which fell nine shy of the 60 needed to advance in the Senate, likely shelves the plan for this year, but gives both parties a political issue heading into November’s elections.

Mr. Obama, in a Rose Garden speech, said the oil subsidies should be cut so the money can be put into his priorities.

“We should be using that money to double down on clean-energy technologies that have never been more promising,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s the future. That’s the only way we’re going to break this cycle of high gas prices year after year after year.”

Republicans, though, said eliminating the subsidies amounts to a tax increase on oil and gas companies, which they will pass on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

“President Obama will say and do anything it takes to get reelected even if it means doing a Rose Garden photo-op to pretend increasing energy taxes will lower gas prices,” said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski. “This is just more smoke and mirrors from a president who doesn’t have an energy policy while Americans struggle to pay higher gas prices at the pump.”


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

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.

Any way we can take this $1-$4b and use it to subsidize education?

Ibanez wrote:Any way we can take this $1-$4b and use it to subsidize education?

Sure, let's do that. Of course, college tuition will then magically increase somewhere in the neighborhood of $1-$4B, but hey, we'll feel good about helping education. Can't put a price tag on feeling good, even if it's ephemeral. The funny thing is that if we did that, we'd probably also go ahead and waive any debt those kids would have after getting degrees from those tuition-hiked schools, so we'd end up dropping $1-$4B into education only to end up spending an additional $1-$4B to cover the impacts of us subsidizing it. To quote the great line from the movie "Contact", "Why have one when you can have two for twice the price?".

HI54UNI wrote:Go for it. Save the treasury $4 billion.

While we are at it let's end the subsidies for wind, solar, ethanol, etc. Let's end the subsidies to unions, i.e. Davis Bacon Act. Let's end the subsidies to people that buy hybrid cars. I could go on and on.

I would like someone to explain the logic of how this will lower gas prices.

Agreed. They should cut off the "subsidies" ie exploratory tax write offs for "big oil" as soon as they end the grants, loans, rebates for wind, solar, and hybrid and electrical cars.

Any product that is worth a damn should be able to sell itself and people shouldn't have to be paid to buy with other taxpayers' money..

-


Carney Flustered: Says He Has No Idea Why Obama Voted For Tax Breaks For Oil Companies In 2005 And Now Opposes Them…


[youtube][/youtube]

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Any way we can take this $1-$4b and use it to subsidize education?

Sure, let's do that. Of course, college tuition will then magically increase somewhere in the neighborhood of $1-$4B, but hey, we'll feel good about helping education. Can't put a price tag on feeling good, even if it's ephemeral. The funny thing is that if we did that, we'd probably also go ahead and waive any debt those kids would have after getting degrees from those tuition-hiked schools, so we'd end up dropping $1-$4B into education only to end up spending an additional $1-$4B to cover the impacts of us subsidizing it. To quote the great line from the movie "Contact", "Why have one when you can have two for twice the price?".

Best line in great movie.

BDKJMU wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Go for it. Save the treasury $4 billion.

While we are at it let's end the subsidies for wind, solar, ethanol, etc. Let's end the subsidies to unions, i.e. Davis Bacon Act. Let's end the subsidies to people that buy hybrid cars. I could go on and on.

I would like someone to explain the logic of how this will lower gas prices.

Agreed. They should cut off the "subsidies" ie exploratory tax write offs for "big oil" as soon as they end the grants, loans, rebates for wind, solar, and hybrid and electrical cars.

Any product that is worth a damn should be able to sell itself and people shouldn't have to be paid to buy with other taxpayers' money..

Oil is dirtier and non-renewable. Oil is a government subsidized monopoly which, according to the "free market" playbook is the worst kind.

What I think I'm seeing is Obama engaging in demogogurey in order to divert attention from gasoline prices. First of all, we are not "giving" the oil companies anything by "allowing" them to keep their own profits. Second, the amount of money we're talking about...though very large by personal standards...is nothing in the context of the Federal budget. Third, the reason we "give' oil companies "tax breaks" is because it is to our benefit to do so.

The "typical" United States citizen would not see any benefit from doing what Obama is proposing. But Obama, I think, thinks it is time to set up a villian. He's a demogouge. One of the worst in that regard in recent memory. And he's doing what he does.

kalm wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Agreed. They should cut off the "subsidies" ie exploratory tax write offs for "big oil" as soon as they end the grants, loans, rebates for wind, solar, and hybrid and electrical cars.

Any product that is worth a damn should be able to sell itself and people shouldn't have to be paid to buy with other taxpayers' money..

Oil is dirtier and non-renewable. Oil is a government subsidized monopoly which, according to the "free market" playbook is the worst kind.

Baloney- there are a # of major oil companies, and a lot of smaller ones too.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oil is dirtier and non-renewable. Oil is a government subsidized monopoly which, according to the "free market" playbook is the worst kind.

Baloney- there are a # of major oil companies, and a lot of smaller ones too.

Turn in your free market card...immediately.

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.

This.

bluehenbillk wrote:Obama renews call to cut 'big oil' subsidies

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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% ?

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."

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.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oil is dirtier and non-renewable. Oil is a government subsidized monopoly which, according to the "free market" playbook is the worst kind.

Baloney- there are a # of major oil companies, and a lot of smaller ones too.

My neighbor is the CEO of one of those smaller ones.