Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Climbing gas prices have drivers looking for someone to blame. And politicians are looking to take advantage.
Senate Republicans Thursday shot down President Obama's plan to cut off oil companies' tax breaks.
The president says there's not much he can do to control gas prices. Nonetheless, he's working hard to appear to be trying.
He came to the White House rose garden Thursday to urge the Senate to repeal $4 billion in tax subsidies for big oil companies, even though no one thinks that would lower prices at the pump.
"They can either vote to spend billions of dollars on oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past," said Mr. Obama, "or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren't needed to boost oil production."
But moments after the president's plea, the Senate voted 51-47 against the bill, with four Democrats in the majority.
GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News
Oil subsidies stay as GOP blocks Senate repeal | Strange Bedfellows Politics News - seattlepi.com
So its a lie? Doubt it again.Nice try right wing hack.
So the president calls a fixed tax rate that a company pays a subsidy?
your figuring this out. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE THREAD
You and I pay income tax, or at least I can say I do. Do you consider the dependants you claim a subsidy?
If not then what is the difference in what the oil compnaies pay and you and I pay?
To have an expense to risk millions in finding more oil is not a "dependant" in the grand scheme of things in the tax code, than what is?
There is what BHO calls a "subsidy" but in rela life its nothing more than a tax rate
One more question, who will pay for that tax hike if BHO got his way?
You think there is a special fund that exists only to pay taxes?
think about it and get back to me
(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Climbing gas prices have drivers looking for someone to blame. And politicians are looking to take advantage.
Senate Republicans Thursday shot down President Obama's plan to cut off oil companies' tax breaks.
The president says there's not much he can do to control gas prices. Nonetheless, he's working hard to appear to be trying.
He came to the White House rose garden Thursday to urge the Senate to repeal $4 billion in tax subsidies for big oil companies, even though no one thinks that would lower prices at the pump.
"They can either vote to spend billions of dollars on oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past," said Mr. Obama, "or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren't needed to boost oil production."
But moments after the president's plea, the Senate voted 51-47 against the bill, with four Democrats in the majority.
GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News
Oil subsidies stay as GOP blocks Senate repeal | Strange Bedfellows Politics News - seattlepi.com
So its a lie? Doubt it again.Nice try right wing hack.
So the president calls a fixed tax rate that a company pays a subsidy?
your figuring this out. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE THREAD
You and I pay income tax, or at least I can say I do. Do you consider the dependants you claim a subsidy?
If not then what is the difference in what the oil compnaies pay and you and I pay?
To have an expense to risk millions in finding more oil is not a "dependant" in the grand scheme of things in the tax code, than what is?
There is what BHO calls a "subsidy" but in rela life its nothing more than a tax rate
One more question, who will pay for that tax hike if BHO got his way?
You think there is a special fund that exists only to pay taxes?
think about it and get back to me
Let's make them pay for what they do.
Simple little idea that some might not understand.
Less big bonuses for the CEO's more money put back into their operations.
So the president calls a fixed tax rate that a company pays a subsidy?
your figuring this out. IT IS THE INTENT OF THE THREAD
You and I pay income tax, or at least I can say I do. Do you consider the dependants you claim a subsidy?
If not then what is the difference in what the oil compnaies pay and you and I pay?
To have an expense to risk millions in finding more oil is not a "dependant" in the grand scheme of things in the tax code, than what is?
There is what BHO calls a "subsidy" but in rela life its nothing more than a tax rate
One more question, who will pay for that tax hike if BHO got his way?
You think there is a special fund that exists only to pay taxes?
think about it and get back to me
Let's make them pay for what they do.
Simple little idea that some might not understand.
Less big bonuses for the CEO's more money put back into their operations.
Another thread, and there are times I get agitated with same, but that agitation comes with the freedom's we all enjoy
Your a boliermaker I would assume
what are you going to do after they shut down these coal fired units for work in the spring and fall?
where will the next turn arounds be for your brothers?
I am supporter of the trades and have worked hand in hand with the BMs
Ask your self whats next? these Combined cycle units do not need your expertise, not much any-way
Let's make them pay for what they do.
Simple little idea that some might not understand.
Less big bonuses for the CEO's more money put back into their operations.
Another thread, and there are times I get agitated with same, but that agitation comes with the freedom's we all enjoy
Your a boliermaker I would assume
what are you going to do after they shut down these coal fired units for work in the spring and fall?
where will the next turn arounds be for your brothers?
I am supporter of the trades and have worked hand in hand with the BMs
Ask your self whats next? these Combined cycle units do not need your expertise, not much any-way
Let me put it this way. Myself, I am not afraid of those who sit in judgement. The power they have because of money does not scare me. If they close down any plants it is because they want too. If they are making money in any plant, seriously, do you think they will shut it down? No. The only time they would shut down a plant of any kind is when it does not make them money.
And this opens up an entirely new subject to discuss.
Another thread, and there are times I get agitated with same, but that agitation comes with the freedom's we all enjoy
Your a boliermaker I would assume
what are you going to do after they shut down these coal fired units for work in the spring and fall?
where will the next turn arounds be for your brothers?
I am supporter of the trades and have worked hand in hand with the BMs
Ask your self whats next? these Combined cycle units do not need your expertise, not much any-way
Let me put it this way. Myself, I am not afraid of those who sit in judgement. The power they have because of money does not scare me. If they close down any plants it is because they want too. If they are making money in any plant, seriously, do you think they will shut it down? No. The only time they would shut down a plant of any kind is when it does not make them money.
And this opens up an entirely new subject to discuss.
Obama is shutting them down
no-one else
Getting ready for a wave of coal-plant shutdowns - The Washington Post
Look Obama has been dis honest, and yes this is another subject, but the mans word is no different
Let me put it this way. Myself, I am not afraid of those who sit in judgement. The power they have because of money does not scare me. If they close down any plants it is because they want too. If they are making money in any plant, seriously, do you think they will shut it down? No. The only time they would shut down a plant of any kind is when it does not make them money.
And this opens up an entirely new subject to discuss.
Obama is shutting them down
no-one else
Getting ready for a wave of coal-plant shutdowns - The Washington Post
Look Obama has been dis honest, and yes this is another subject, but the mans word is no different
Really? You think that is what is happening.
Not in my lifetime or yours.
Another thread, and there are times I get agitated with same, but that agitation comes with the freedom's we all enjoy
Your a boliermaker I would assume
what are you going to do after they shut down these coal fired units for work in the spring and fall?
where will the next turn arounds be for your brothers?
I am supporter of the trades and have worked hand in hand with the BMs
Ask your self whats next? these Combined cycle units do not need your expertise, not much any-way
Let me put it this way. Myself, I am not afraid of those who sit in judgement. The power they have because of money does not scare me. If they close down any plants it is because they want too. If they are making money in any plant, seriously, do you think they will shut it down? No. The only time they would shut down a plant of any kind is when it does not make them money.
And this opens up an entirely new subject to discuss.
Obama is shutting them down
no-one else
Getting ready for a wave of coal-plant shutdowns - The Washington Post
Look Obama has been dis honest, and yes this is another subject, but the mans word is no different
On November 9, 2005, the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing with five oil company CEOs.
When asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether they disagreed with President Bush’s statement that oil subsidies are unnecessary to encourage exploration, they all responded that they did not disagree:
Leo Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobil: No, I do not think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.
David O’Reilly, CEO, ChevronTexaco: Agreed. James Mulva, CEO, ConocoPhillips: In my oral comments, I said we do not need. …
Ross Pillari. CEO, BP America. He is correct.
John Hofmeister, CEO, Shell: Yes, he is.
So, not only did the top oil execs acknowledge the existence of the subsidies/tax breaks,
they also admitted they did not need them.
http://democrats.oversight.house.go...ucts/COOGR Democratic Oil Report 05-23-11.pdf
On November 9, 2005, the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing with five oil company CEOs.
When asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether they disagreed with President Bushs statement that oil subsidies are unnecessary to encourage exploration, they all responded that they did not disagree:
Leo Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobil: No, I do not think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.
David OReilly, CEO, ChevronTexaco: Agreed. James Mulva, CEO, ConocoPhillips: In my oral comments, I said we do not need.
Ross Pillari. CEO, BP America. He is correct.
John Hofmeister, CEO, Shell: Yes, he is.
So, not only did the top oil execs acknowledge the existence of the subsidies/tax breaks,
they also admitted they did not need them.
http://democrats.oversight.house.go...ucts/COOGR Democratic Oil Report 05-23-11.pdf
Where did the acknowledge the existence of subsidies/tax breaks?
you raise taxes on Exxon, your rasing taxes on you
its that simple
you raise taxes on Exxon, your rasing taxes on you
its that simple
This is exactly why we need a complete overhaul of our tax code. There are so many carve-outs it has become blatant corruption.
Basically a carve-out goes like this: "All businesses must pay 25% tax, except this company over here which contributed big bucks to our campaigns."
This is a grossly uncompetitive system we have now.
When someone else's taxes goes down, yours have to go up to "balance the budget".
Throw out the entire tax code. It is one gigantic pile of exemptions bought through open bribery.
Start from scratch. Everyone pays the same amount. No exceptions.
Then YOU will pay a lot less in taxes, so who cares if Exxon raises your gasoline a penny?
Level playing field, and may the best business model win.
On November 9, 2005, the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing with five oil company CEOs.
When asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether they disagreed with President Bushs statement that oil subsidies are unnecessary to encourage exploration, they all responded that they did not disagree:
Leo Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobil: No, I do not think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.
David OReilly, CEO, ChevronTexaco: Agreed. James Mulva, CEO, ConocoPhillips: In my oral comments, I said we do not need.
Ross Pillari. CEO, BP America. He is correct.
John Hofmeister, CEO, Shell: Yes, he is.
So, not only did the top oil execs acknowledge the existence of the subsidies/tax breaks,
they also admitted they did not need them.
http://democrats.oversight.house.go...ucts/COOGR Democratic Oil Report 05-23-11.pdf
Where did they acknowledge the existence of subsidies/tax breaks?
On November 9, 2005, the Senate Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Energy and Natural Resources held a joint hearing with five oil company CEOs.
When asked by Senator Ron Wyden whether they disagreed with President Bushs statement that oil subsidies are unnecessary to encourage exploration, they all responded that they did not disagree:
Leo Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobil: No, I do not think our company has asked for any incentives for exploration.
David OReilly, CEO, ChevronTexaco: Agreed. James Mulva, CEO, ConocoPhillips: In my oral comments, I said we do not need.
Ross Pillari. CEO, BP America. He is correct.
John Hofmeister, CEO, Shell: Yes, he is.
So, not only did the top oil execs acknowledge the existence of the subsidies/tax breaks,
they also admitted they did not need them.
http://democrats.oversight.house.go...ucts/COOGR Democratic Oil Report 05-23-11.pdf
Where did they acknowledge the existence of subsidies/tax breaks?
Since he left his company, former Shell CEO John Hofmeister has made clear that his position has not changed since his testimony. On February 11, 2011, he stated, In the face of sustained high oil prices it was not an issuefor large companiesof needing the subsidies to entice us into looking for and producing more oil.
Eliminating these tax preferences, which subsidize fossil fuel production, will both reduce the federal deficit and expedite the transition to a cleaner‐energy economy. Critics of repealing these subsidies argue that the targeted tax breaks spur production and lower energy prices.
This is funny because I was actually contemplating starting a topic this past weekend called "When Tax Credits Become A Subsidy". There are certain situations, like in ObamaCare, when this is the case.
However, all this smoke and mirrors asking for evidence of "subsidies" in this topic conceals the very real fact that oil companies do get tax breaks from Congress. Tax breaks, by definition, are an exemption not given equally to all, and are therefore uncompetitive. They create an unlevel playing field.
So let's remove all of them (not just oil carve outs), lower everyone's tax rate, and see who has a failure for a business model and who does not.