"...doing just fine on their own."

[Mr. H.]

Sure.

A domestic manufacturing tax deduction worth 1.73B
Acceleratated depreciation schedules worth 4B
Tax credit for production of nonconventional fuels (i.e. shale etc...) worth about 2B
Royalties and mineral rights subsidies worth 1-3B

...I could go on...

With very few exceptions, these "subsidies" are no different than those available to other industries.

No, that is wrong. Other industries can not access the domestic manufacturing tax deduction, the accelerated depreciation schedules carved out for oil companies, or the royalties subsidy from use of public lands and public goods.



Because the government singled it out for special benefits and subsidies that other firms don't get.

It's less profitable than other sectors of the economy.

In dollar value, there is no sector more profitable.

And w/re: to the unique tax treatments that do benefit oil and gas, the returns to the government more than offset the preferences. Investment, economic activity, jobs, and increased production.

...ah yes. and here we have it folks - the so-called party of free markets diligently protecting anti-free market policies that help fund the party's leadership.

The Manufacturing Tax Deduction was enacted in 2004. All US manufacturers benefitted from the deduction until 2008 -when the oil and natural gas industry was restricted to a six percent deduction while other manufacturers' deductions grew to 9%.

By "accelerated depreciation" you are probably referring to the expensing of intangible drilling costs- costs associated with a project that are not used to purchase physical goods- a part of the Tax Code since 1913.

"Dollar value" as a measure of profit? Oh come on now.

When subsidies/entitlements/tax preferences are totally eliminated across the board then maybe you can start your own thread on free market policies.

With respect to Obama's targeting of the oil and gas industry... I repeat that it was the wrong message, it's the wrong policy, and there is plenty more money out there in other industries.

 

[8537]

With very few exceptions, these "subsidies" are no different than those available to other industries.

No, that is wrong. Other industries can not access the domestic manufacturing tax deduction, the accelerated depreciation schedules carved out for oil companies, or the royalties subsidy from use of public lands and public goods.



Because the government singled it out for special benefits and subsidies that other firms don't get.



In dollar value, there is no sector more profitable.

And w/re: to the unique tax treatments that do benefit oil and gas, the returns to the government more than offset the preferences. Investment, economic activity, jobs, and increased production.

...ah yes. and here we have it folks - the so-called party of free markets diligently protecting anti-free market policies that help fund the party's leadership.

The Manufacturing Tax Deduction was enacted in 2004. All US manufacturers benefitted from the deduction until 2008 -when the oil and natural gas industry was restricted to a six percent deduction while other manufacturers' deductions grew to 9%.

I can't debate someone who gets publishes facts that are simply wrong.

By "accelerated depreciation" you are probably referring to the expensing of intangible drilling costs- costs associated with a project that are not used to purchase physical goods- a part of the Tax Code since 1913.

No. I'm referring to the tax code carve-out for oil companies that allows accelerated depreciation.

"Dollar value" as a measure of profit? Oh come on now.

Yes, profits are measured in dollars - so the value of those dollars is a reasonable measure.

When subsidies/entitlements/tax preferences are totally eliminated across the board then maybe you can start your own thread on free market policies.

I'm not the one wearing the cape of free-market supermen as Republicans do. I actually support subsidizing certain products that offer positive externalities. Oil isn't one of them.

With respect to Obama's targeting of the oil and gas industry... I repeat that it was the wrong message, it's the wrong policy, and there is plenty more money out there in other industries.

You are free to repeat your opinion all you'd like.

 

[Newby]

Wait a second - we've gone from "they don't really get much in subsidies" to "If we end the subsidies, oil will be $140 per barrel?"

If the market price of oil is $140 per barrel, then when the price reaches $140 per barrel people will substitute out of oil into other more affordable options. We can either plan for that day, or wait around for the market. One way or another, that day is coming because oil is a finite resource.

I'd prefer to plan. China prefers to plan. Conservatives prefer to bury their heads and act like we can just subsidize our way out of it.

What other 'affordable option' are you referring too? What can replace what oil currently does today in just about every capacity, and of course, will be more 'friendly' to the environement at the same time?

^That's the point. Before oil reaches scarcity and therefore prices that will crush our economy, we need to be researching options. Oil is a finite and increasingly scarce resource. Short of a change in demand, the price will only increase over the long term.

What options? What options will realistically be able to replace oil in our society? What is your source for oil being an increasingly scarce resource? Let's see some figures and time lines.

 

[Synthaholic]

Although the "Greenies" find oil offensive, our economy runs on oil; like it or not. There is no switch to be flipped where miraculously we go from oil to windmills overnight. Get real.

No one said "overnite".

I read a while back that when you take everything into consideration, like a massive military in the Middle East to protect the flow of oil, the subsidized cost of a gallon of gas is over $15.

I would rather that be put into green energy.

 

[mdn2000]

The current "winners" are oil companies, whose product also has quite large negative externalities associated with it. They "win" to the tune of billions in direct subsidies each year.

Obama is recommending putting an end to that "winning" and so-called Conservatives are busy endlessly justifying the subsidy.

Could you do us a favor and go into a little more detail on those direct subsidies?

Sure.

A domestic manufacturing tax deduction worth 1.73B
Acceleratated depreciation schedules worth 4B
Tax credit for production of nonconventional fuels (i.e. shale etc...) worth about 2B
Royalties and mineral rights subsidies worth 1-3B

...I could go on...

You should go on and in detail, start with the tax deduction, does it have a name, a law associated with it, same with the schedules and tax credits, the royalties, and mineral rights. I seriously have no education on the paticular details of this so its worth while to be detailed if you can. Makes my research much easier to see how true and put this in proper perspective.

How about the list of Energy rules and regulations passed by Congress, over one thousand under Obama.

Bottom line is not one politician that I know of is doing a thing for our country in regards to energy. We need to start by getting the government out of the way of energy production, I say eliminate all taxes, rules, and regulations.

Allow CEO's, Presidents, and managers to be prosecuted for any deaths they cause or deliberate pollution but get rid of all the red tape of bueacrisy.

 

[Samson]

With respect to Obama's targeting of the oil and gas industry... I repeat that it was the wrong message, it's the wrong policy, and there is plenty more money out there in other industries.

You may be referring to the Corn Industry.

$4B subsidies in 2009

The largest single recipient was Clawson Farm Partnership, which received $236,000 in 2009.

Clawson Farm Partnership received payments totaling $9,238,459 from 1995 through 2009

The premise for these subsidies is to preserve the National Food Source.

It is interesting that the Obama Administration does not view the National Energy Source as equally deserving.

Apparently they plan to transport the nation's food via.........Oxen drawn wagons?

And instead of a mechanized military, we'll reinstate the Horse Calvary?

Finally, does he believe that the US will make any serious difference in carbon emmissions if the government decreases subsidies?

Internationally, the US subsidizes fossil fuels MUCH less than Russia, China, India, or Mexico, and all of OPEC.

 

[Mr. H.]

Eligibility for the deduction is broader than one might initially believe. Traditional manufacturers of tangible personal property are eligible, but so are engineers, architects, film producers, developers of software, and firms involved in real property construction and renovation, among others. Of course, only production activity within the United States qualifies for the tax break, as implied by the deduction’s name.

The Domestic Manufacturing Tax Deduction - Real Opportunities, Real Savings

Let's just cherry-pick the oil industry and get all those billions back that was handed to them by the taxpayers. As Obama said "they're doing just fine on their own".

When you pay personal income taxes, do you consider that money to be yours first and foremost?
If you earn it by working, if it shows up in the form of a paycheck, if you deposit it in the bank - it was at one time in your posession.

But somehow the oil and gas industry is so unique, so special, that the President feels it is his duty to single it out and declare that "they're doing just fine on their own". And he predicates it by saying that we can have one million electric vehicles on our roads paid for by taking billions of dollars that belong to the industry in the first place.

What is the connection? Where is the logic?

 

[8537]

What other 'affordable option' are you referring too? What can replace what oil currently does today in just about every capacity, and of course, will be more 'friendly' to the environement at the same time?

^That's the point. Before oil reaches scarcity and therefore prices that will crush our economy, we need to be researching options. Oil is a finite and increasingly scarce resource. Short of a change in demand, the price will only increase over the long term.

What options? What options will realistically be able to replace oil in our society?

Those questions are why we need to fund R&D. Fifty years ago we saw zero other options. We now see a host of potential options including a mix of solar, wind power, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels...none of which can singly replace oil at the moment.

What is your source for oil being an increasingly scarce resource?

Let's make sure we agree on a couple things here, ok?
1. Oil is a finite resource. It does not replenish in any way meaningful to human timelines.

2. We are using our stock of that finite resource.

Surely you don't disagree with either of those?
From those obvious facts, it follows logically that oil is becoming increasingly scarce.

 

[Samson]

^That's the point. Before oil reaches scarcity and therefore prices that will crush our economy, we need to be researching options. Oil is a finite and increasingly scarce resource. Short of a change in demand, the price will only increase over the long term.

What options? What options will realistically be able to replace oil in our society?

Those questions are why we need to fund R&D. Fifty years ago we saw zero other options. We now see a host of potential options including a mix of solar, wind power, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels...none of which can singly replace oil at the moment.

What is your source for oil being an increasingly scarce resource?

Let's make sure we agree on a couple things here, ok?
1. Oil is a finite resource. It does not replenish in any way meaningful to human timelines.

2. We are using our stock of that finite resource.

Surely you don't disagree with either of those?
From those obvious facts, it follows logically that oil is becoming increasingly scarce.

If you're a 'sip, I can understand how easily you are confused.

There are plenty of threads for Peak Oil Idiots to repeat the mantra they've memorized over the past 70 years: Find one.

This thread is about the Obama Administration's refusal to subsidize a vital national resource: certainly one that it no less vital than Corn, producers of which also receive subsidies.

 

[VaYank5150]

Has this President not learned anything about the petroleum industry during his two years in office? Evidently not. For him to make such a blatanly ignorant comment during his State of the Union speech is not only irresponsible, but it sends a very wrong message to America.

"I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies."

What gives?

Tax preference items? Accelerated depreciation? Depletion? Amortization? Intangible costs?

Oh yeah- he's referring to the myriad of provisions that have been a part of the tax code for decades, all of which are afforded other industries who are doing even "finer" than oil and gas concerns.

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by this guy's short-sighted whimsical jabs, singling out the most critically vital industry in our nation - one that employs over 9 million people and contributes nearly 8% of the GDP.

Did you watch the streaming approval chart when Obamasturbator made these comments?
Democrats had an orgasm. Republicans pissed their pants.

And what would be the fruits of eliminating "the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies"? Would oil imports drop? Fuck no! Domestic production will drop, imports will go up.

If The 'Bator is looking for money, let him start with Agriculture, Investment Banking, Pharmeceuticals, Telecoms, etc. etc. - you know- the industries that reap even more billions in taxpayer dollars.

Spoken like a true "conservative"....but haven't you heard about out $1.5T defecit? Wouldn't eliminating these breaks to companies who can obviously do just fine with out them help to eliminate that defecit? How about the BILLIONS given to farmers? Defense spending? Hello??

 

[Newby]

^That's the point. Before oil reaches scarcity and therefore prices that will crush our economy, we need to be researching options. Oil is a finite and increasingly scarce resource. Short of a change in demand, the price will only increase over the long term.

What options? What options will realistically be able to replace oil in our society?

Those questions are why we need to fund R&D. Fifty years ago we saw zero other options. We now see a host of potential options including a mix of solar, wind power, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels...none of which can singly replace oil at the moment.

What is your source for oil being an increasingly scarce resource?

Let's make sure we agree on a couple things here, ok?
1. Oil is a finite resource. It does not replenish in any way meaningful to human timelines.

2. We are using our stock of that finite resource.

Surely you don't disagree with either of those?
From those obvious facts, it follows logically that oil is becoming increasingly scarce.

None of the things that you listed can currently come anywhere even close to realistically replacing oil.

So, you have no facts or figures then? When is oil going to run out? Since it's a finite resource, it's measurable? Correct? We know what our consumption is, correct? So, let's see the math.

 

[Samson]

Has this President not learned anything about the petroleum industry during his two years in office? Evidently not. For him to make such a blatanly ignorant comment during his State of the Union speech is not only irresponsible, but it sends a very wrong message to America.

"I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies."

What gives?

Tax preference items? Accelerated depreciation? Depletion? Amortization? Intangible costs?

Oh yeah- he's referring to the myriad of provisions that have been a part of the tax code for decades, all of which are afforded other industries who are doing even "finer" than oil and gas concerns.

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by this guy's short-sighted whimsical jabs, singling out the most critically vital industry in our nation - one that employs over 9 million people and contributes nearly 8% of the GDP.

Did you watch the streaming approval chart when Obamasturbator made these comments?
Democrats had an orgasm. Republicans pissed their pants.

And what would be the fruits of eliminating "the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies"? Would oil imports drop? Fuck no! Domestic production will drop, imports will go up.

If The 'Bator is looking for money, let him start with Agriculture, Investment Banking, Pharmeceuticals, Telecoms, etc. etc. - you know- the industries that reap even more billions in taxpayer dollars.

Spoken like a true "conservative"....but haven't you heard about out $1.5T defecit? Wouldn't eliminating these breaks to companies who can obviously do just fine with out them help to eliminate that defecit? How about the BILLIONS given to farmers? Defense spending? Hello??

Um...did Obama mention Farm Subsidies? Defense?

Do you even bother reading before posting?

 

[Samson]

What options? What options will realistically be able to replace oil in our society?

Those questions are why we need to fund R&D. Fifty years ago we saw zero other options. We now see a host of potential options including a mix of solar, wind power, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels...none of which can singly replace oil at the moment.

What is your source for oil being an increasingly scarce resource?

Let's make sure we agree on a couple things here, ok?
1. Oil is a finite resource. It does not replenish in any way meaningful to human timelines.

2. We are using our stock of that finite resource.

Surely you don't disagree with either of those?
From those obvious facts, it follows logically that oil is becoming increasingly scarce.

None of the things that you listed can currently come anywhere even close to realistically replacing oil.

So, you have no facts or figures then? When is oil going to run out? Since it's a finite resource, it's measurable? Correct? We know what our consumption is, correct? So, let's see the math.

Yeah, go ahead and swallow the red herring.

 

[boedicca]

With respect to Obama's targeting of the oil and gas industry... I repeat that it was the wrong message, it's the wrong policy, and there is plenty more money out there in other industries.

You may be referring to the Corn Industry.

$4B subsidies in 2009

The largest single recipient was Clawson Farm Partnership, which received $236,000 in 2009.

Clawson Farm Partnership received payments totaling $9,238,459 from 1995 through 2009

The premise for these subsidies is to preserve the National Food Source.

It is interesting that the Obama Administration does not view the National Energy Source as equally deserving.

Apparently they plan to transport the nation's food via.........Oxen drawn wagons?

And instead of a mechanized military, we'll reinstate the Horse Calvary?

Finally, does he believe that the US will make any serious difference in carbon emmissions if the government decreases subsidies?

Internationally, the US subsidizes fossil fuels MUCH less than Russia, China, India, or Mexico, and all of OPEC.

So if we're trying to preserve Corn as a Food Source, why are is the government also subidizing burning it for fuel?

 

[Big Fitz]

The goal is to destroy domestic carbon based fuel production in this nation to bring about it's economic collapse and turn us into a socialist nanny state for the sake of the children!

Or am I picking up on the consequences of their real goals again, not what they're saying.

 

[cutter]

And you think Obama is stupid? OMG read this woman's life history:Michele Bachmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nutjob, ballonhead, stupid, and the group of people she live with in the Anoka dist is just about the same, at least the ones who keep sending this wackjob back to the congress.

It the usual liberal argument. When someone say's your candidate is stupid you just point out that somewhere in the world there is someone more stupid. I guess it answers the stupid question if even his supporters don't dispute it.

 

[logical4u]

Although the "Greenies" find oil offensive, our economy runs on oil; like it or not. There is no switch to be flipped where miraculously we go from oil to windmills overnight. Get real.

No one said "overnite".

I read a while back that when you take everything into consideration, like a massive military in the Middle East to protect the flow of oil, the subsidized cost of a gallon of gas is over $15.

I would rather that be put into green energy.

That "free market" need safety as an equalizer. If there is no safety, there is no "free market". If we were drilling here, there would be less need for our troops to be over there. If you want to subsidize "alternative" fuels, develop and use everything you have here (coal, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, oil, solar, wind etc). When the bottom falls out of the supply prices, take that money that is going TO THE MIDDLE EAST MUSLIMS, and put it into the alternatives.

 

[Big Fitz]

Although the "Greenies" find oil offensive, our economy runs on oil; like it or not. There is no switch to be flipped where miraculously we go from oil to windmills overnight. Get real.

No one said "overnite".

I read a while back that when you take everything into consideration, like a massive military in the Middle East to protect the flow of oil, the subsidized cost of a gallon of gas is over $15.

I would rather that be put into green energy.

That "free market" need safety as an equalizer. If there is no safety, there is no "free market". If we were drilling here, there would be less need for our troops to be over there. If you want to subsidize "alternative" fuels, develop and use everything you have here (coal, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, oil, solar, wind etc). When the bottom falls out of the supply prices, take that money that is going TO THE MIDDLE EAST MUSLIMS, and put it into the alternatives.

The market chooses the quality of life it wants by punishing companies who are socially irresponsible and lower the quality of life a populace wishes to live at. It often takes longer than most people are willing to wait, BUT it does happen.

And 'green energy' is not ready for prime time. Hell, it's not ready for the 1am-4am time slot. Give it 50-75 years of research, and an alternative will show up, that the greenies will probably protest as well.

 

[Mr. H.]

Has this President not learned anything about the petroleum industry during his two years in office? Evidently not. For him to make such a blatanly ignorant comment during his State of the Union speech is not only irresponsible, but it sends a very wrong message to America.

"I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies."

What gives?

Tax preference items? Accelerated depreciation? Depletion? Amortization? Intangible costs?

Oh yeah- he's referring to the myriad of provisions that have been a part of the tax code for decades, all of which are afforded other industries who are doing even "finer" than oil and gas concerns.

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by this guy's short-sighted whimsical jabs, singling out the most critically vital industry in our nation - one that employs over 9 million people and contributes nearly 8% of the GDP.

Did you watch the streaming approval chart when Obamasturbator made these comments?
Democrats had an orgasm. Republicans pissed their pants.

And what would be the fruits of eliminating "the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies"? Would oil imports drop? Fuck no! Domestic production will drop, imports will go up.

If The 'Bator is looking for money, let him start with Agriculture, Investment Banking, Pharmeceuticals, Telecoms, etc. etc. - you know- the industries that reap even more billions in taxpayer dollars.

Spoken like a true "conservative"....but haven't you heard about out $1.5T defecit? Wouldn't eliminating these breaks to companies who can obviously do just fine with out them help to eliminate that defecit? How about the BILLIONS given to farmers? Defense spending? Hello??

And it's the true liberal that evidently ate Obama's assertion that the oil industry is "just fine on their own".

Where did Obama get this notion? And who sets the bar that guages such "austerity"?
His statements were arbitrary, copricious, damaging, and dowright idiotic.

You are correct there- what about the billions "doled" out to agriculture and a host of other industries? That's one of the points I'm making in that the petroleum industry is not the only one that is afforded preferential tax treatments under the code. Treatments that I also believe are mislabeled as "subsidies" - direct cash payments.

Yet, are petroleum companies to singularly shoulder such a burden? Are they the only ones that Obama will call to the carpet to step up and pay for his million electric cars or whatever green/alternative/renewable program he chooses?

Did the oil industry itself cause that trillion plus dollar deficit?

 

[logical4u]

With respect to Obama's targeting of the oil and gas industry... I repeat that it was the wrong message, it's the wrong policy, and there is plenty more money out there in other industries.

You may be referring to the Corn Industry.

$4B subsidies in 2009

The largest single recipient was Clawson Farm Partnership, which received $236,000 in 2009.

Clawson Farm Partnership received payments totaling $9,238,459 from 1995 through 2009

The premise for these subsidies is to preserve the National Food Source.

It is interesting that the Obama Administration does not view the National Energy Source as equally deserving.

Apparently they plan to transport the nation's food via.........Oxen drawn wagons?

And instead of a mechanized military, we'll reinstate the Horse Calvary?

Finally, does he believe that the US will make any serious difference in carbon emmissions if the government decreases subsidies?

Internationally, the US subsidizes fossil fuels MUCH less than Russia, China, India, or Mexico, and all of OPEC.

This government does seem to want to limit our (citizen's) travel. TSA has reduced the desire to travel by airline. Now they are threatening to install screening stations at trains and possibly bus stations. The only form of travel they haven't put their noses into is personal auto (though they want to tell us to save energy and what vehicles will accomplish that "energy savings"). Maybe their plan is to take away the ability for citizens to travel, inexpensively?