Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The .gov has to pay for all the roads the dirty cars and trucks that burn the Oil run on. Very few "winners" in the mess up the whole line. Ought to just take US off Oil and be done with the whole mess.
The 'government' pays for nothing... it is we the people. I use cars, trucks, buses all the time. All of the products I buy are transported by vehicles powered by oil and driven on roads. My police and fire protection count on oil and roads. I would love to have some 'magic' alternative but don't see one coming.
i actually had to look that up, because i didn't know exactly what these "subsidies" include:
•Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
•Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
•Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
•Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
•Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
•Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
•Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
•The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
•Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
•Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)
most of those i have no problem with, and other countries subsidize their oil companies to some extent. i absolutely would 100% discontinue giving money to international financial institutions. why are we even doing that???
i wonder what amount that represents of the total.
remember, if we pay more for fuel it represents a TAX on us and, in a downturning economy, it could be devastating for the health of the economy. that also helps "grow" the government and reduce the private sector-something we really, really don't need more of:
The truth is that in the past year the labor force has shrunk by about a million and the participation rate has shrunk by about 3 million.(nathan's economic edge)
if push came to shove in the economy, i would rather see government cut their share of taxes on fuel to lower the price until the crisis is over. (although my guess is that this isn't going to be put on the table ). that frees up private sector money.
you think the republicans should turn their backs on those people who buy their votes while the democrats continue to protect the people that buy them? the democrats defend npr, planned parenthood, etc., the republicans are going to do the same.
i dont like it, thats why i think they should all be cut at the same time. but it puts the republicans at a disadvantage if they cant be bought like the democrats can.
Of course both parties cater to their constituencies. The issue with oil companies seems to be about giving them taxpayer dollars while they reap record profits off said same taxpayers. Exxon might just survive without tax subsidies, but that is only a wild guess.
I'm fairly certain both parties are going to have to accept huge cuts to programs their voting base hold dear. The question is only how deep and who are we looking out for? Is attempting to make Medicare a voucher system a partisan issue? All old people are Democrats? Take that next step and try not to just think along party lines.
Last edited by shaker281; 05-08-2011 at 10:27 PM..
If you are gonna end them-- end them for everyone. Why pick on the oil companies?
See the post above. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and subsidies for phenomenally profitable entities seems a bit different from programs that would cease to exist without taxpayer support.
the problem is that politicians job's are to sell their votes, not stand up for ideals. the tea party is trying to change that. thats a big part of the conflict between the tea party and the big government republicans. the big government republicans have become entrenched in a system where they have been bought by lobbyists over and over and over again. they couldnt care less about anyones ideals except what they need to say to stay in office. the tea party is working to weed them out. then everyone will get their cuts.
No, it isn't. A big part of the conflict is that intelligent Republicans see the Tea Party for what it is - an extremist faction that has a very specific agenda. Yes, they have ridden the wave of discontent over the countries current economic situation, but a close look at the Tea party candidates and agendas reveals a completely different story. If we are counting on them to get our house in order we are doomed.
...remember, if we pay more for fuel it represents a TAX on us and, in a downturning economy, it could be devastating for the health of the economy. that also helps "grow" the government and reduce the private sector-something we really, really don't need more of:
...
if push came to shove in the economy, i would rather see government cut their share of taxes on fuel to lower the price until the crisis is over. (although my guess is that this isn't going to be put on the table ). that frees up private sector money.
Maybe I am way off base, but how can you be in favor of free market economic practices and deficit reduction while continuing to support hugely profitable private entities with ever dwindling (tax cuts) public funds? Sounds like the recipe for how we got here in the first place. I.e. cutting taxes without cutting expenditures.
you aren't off base to question. we just need to put things in perspective:
"During the first three months of this year, for every gallon of gasoline and other products we refined and sold in the United States, we earned about 7 cents," Exxon executive Ken Cohen told reporters on a conference call.
"Compare that to the 40 to 60 cents per cents per gallon that went from gasoline consumers to the government (state and federal) in gasoline taxes," he said.
we have a government which is choosing to tax and regulate excessively, and there has to be some consideration given to that aspect. we are currently dependent on reasonably priced oil for our economic recovery-or simply there isn't going to be one.
what i seriously don't understand is why we are not going towards natural gas development. we have HUGE amounts of natural gas available, we don't have to go overseas to get it, we don't have to fight wars to get it, and conversion wouldn't be that difficult -assuming the EPA stays out of it.
at least people should have a choice. there about 8 million light duty NGVs in operation, so it isn't an "unproven" possibility. THAT would certainly generate some NEW american jobs.
Last edited by floridasandy; 05-09-2011 at 06:28 AM..
No, it isn't. A big part of the conflict is that intelligent Republicans see the Tea Party for what it is - an extremist faction that has a very specific agenda.
those wouldnt be intelligent republicans, because the tea party isnt extremist. the tea party is the mainstream american that wants less government. but charles schumer thanks you for repeating the talking points of the caucus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). that frees up private sector money.
