Ryan calls for ending oil subsidies

[bripat9643]

Mossadegh was the preferred candidate. Why was he ousted?

He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

 

[bripat9643]

Enron went under during the Bush administration. You probably think that 9/11 happened under Clinton too.

Try real news outlets next time..

Yep, it went bankrupt during the Bush administration, but all the criminal shenanigans occurred during the Clinton Administration.

 

[Che]

Speculation.

Remember Enron?

Yeah, I remember that happened on Clinton's watch. I don't recall a huge jump in electricity prices where I lived. It seems only the government of California got snookered by the Enron crooks.

Enron went under during the Bush administration. You probably think that 9/11 happened under Clinton too.

Try real news outlets next time..

A lot of things happened under Clinton's watch. Like certain people taking flying lessons. When the airlines were told they needed to have more secure cockpit doors but the Clinton admin decided to take the campaign cash from the airlines instead of making them go for the more secure cockpit doors.

I'll bet you get your real news from msnbc.

 

[SFC Ollie]

There's your lie that you should have a problem with, I know why we went into Iraq, I was still on active duty when it all started back in 90. And it has nothing to do with the Iraqis hating us or our freedom. But you believe your talking points and pass on the lie.

Why did we invade, shitbag?

This should be most amusing.

Shit bag? I'm sorry that does not warrant a response other than the Neg rep coming your way. How amusing is that?

 

[drsmith1072]

Why would ANYONE? R, D or I be against cutting out corporate welfare for these oil companies?

The other thing is that I have seen at least a few on the left mention the subsidies for oil companies before so why is it that when ryan says something the assumption is that he is the first to "raise the issue?" LOL

However, my guess is that the energy subsidies he and the right would want to get rid of are those that go toward research for alternative fuels such as wind, solar and ethanol.

I actually think that Ron Paul was one of the first to raise the issue of subsides, why would I be trying to give Ryan credit?

I was merely going by the topic of this thread and things said in it.
Sorry that you misunderstood.

 

[drsmith1072]

No.

His plan actually follows some of the recommendations of Obama's fiscal commission. He wants to expand the tax base by eliminating tax loopholes and subsidies.

By the way, the only real subsidies the oil industry gets is for their investments in developing alternative energy. Most of the stuff that is getting labelled as subsidies by Democrats are nothing more than tax write offs for expenses, which allows the companies to recoup some of the money they lose in drilling bad wells or dealing with massive government regulation.

So in essense we are paying for their bad choices and mistakes? Got it.
They CHOOSE where to drill and if they find nothing the government helps them pay for their mistake??
They damage the environment, air water or otherwise, through mishaps, accidents, or negligence and the government covers at least part of their clean up costs??

and you don't see a problem with that??

WOW!

Did I say that? What I said is that there is a difference between a subsidy and a tax write off for expenses. I even specifically spelled out some of the subsidies that oil companies do get just to illustrate the difference.

You should be aware that if you start shutting down deductions for expenses your taxes will go up. No more credits for mortgage interest, state sales and employment taxes, children, depreciation, and all the other little things you take for granted and make it possible for 48% of Americans to pay no federal income tax. Go you call it a subsidy when you benefit, or do you think that it means that you get to keep your taxes fair?

Uh yeah you pretty much did say that. If they are given a "tax write off" for their failed business ventures and screwups then the government is essentially subsidizing their failed business vetnures and screwups.

Why should the government cover the costs of their mistakes??

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So in essense we are paying for their bad choices and mistakes? Got it.
They CHOOSE where to drill and if they find nothing the government helps them pay for their mistake??
They damage the environment, air water or otherwise, through mishaps, accidents, or negligence and the government covers at least part of their clean up costs??

and you don't see a problem with that??

WOW!

Did I say that? What I said is that there is a difference between a subsidy and a tax write off for expenses. I even specifically spelled out some of the subsidies that oil companies do get just to illustrate the difference.

You should be aware that if you start shutting down deductions for expenses your taxes will go up. No more credits for mortgage interest, state sales and employment taxes, children, depreciation, and all the other little things you take for granted and make it possible for 48% of Americans to pay no federal income tax. Go you call it a subsidy when you benefit, or do you think that it means that you get to keep your taxes fair?

Uh yeah you pretty much did say that. If they are given a "tax write off" for their failed business ventures and screwups then the government is essentially subsidizing their failed business vetnures and screwups.

Why should the government cover the costs of their mistakes??

Tax write offs for expenses apply to everyone. Business expenses include depreciation on equipment, interest payments, tax payments to local and state jurisdictions, wages, and myriads of other things. I have no idea why you think they involve nothing more than failed business ventures and screwups.

If you want to make a case for eliminating expenses when determining taxable income, you are certainly free to try. Don't make yourself look like an idiot by calling them subsidies. Subsidies are payments from the government to a business that are intended to keep the prices of something lower than it would otherwise be.

Expenses are the cost of doing business. You take the amount of money a business takes in, subtract those expenses, and tax the profits. That is how taxes have always been figures, and they hopefully always will be figured that way. If the government starts taxing gross income most businesses will collapse overnight.

 

[drsmith1072]

As time passes, Reps are starting to sound more and more like Ron Paul.

Thank Gawd!!

reps are finally starting to talk the talk, now if we can just get them all to walk the walk.

When the dims pulled out the medicare crap and harped on it only, they were saying; "We don't want to fix the problem. We just want to pick party over country and say reps want granny dead and children to starve."

sadly, the dems bought it hook line and sinker. No free thinking needed.

You do realize that even ron paul doesn't walk the walk especially when it comes to things like earmarks which claims to be against een though he requests them but doesn't return the money when it goes to his own state, don't you? LOL

It is interesting that you call him out for being inconsistent simply because you assume you know his position. Newsflash, he does not oppose earmarks. You seem to assume that, just because the Republicans are jumping on the earmark bandwagon, Paul must be on it also.

The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch.

So, in many ways what we are doing here in the Congress is reneging on our responsibilities. Because it is the responsibility of the Congress to earmark. That’s our job. We’re supposed to tell the people how we’re spending the money. Not to just deliver it in the lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it. And then it’s dealt with behind the scenes. Actually, if you voted against all the earmarks there would be less transparency. Earmarks really allow transparency and we know exactly where the money is being spent.

You know, the big issue is the spending. If you don’t like the spending, vote against the bill. But the principle of earmarking is something that we have to think about because we’re just further undermining the responsibilities that we have here in the Congress. And if we want to get things under control it won’t be because we vote against an earmark and make a big deal of attacking earmarks because it doesn’t address the subject.

Ron Paul on Earmarks

So he votes against the bills because they have "pork" in them including some that goes to his state but his argument is that they should bring it back the their states because if they don't spend it someone else will??

He is bascially arguing that pork is bad so I am voting against the bills that contain it BUT since it is going to be spent anyway I might as well get mine as the earmarks get slapped on to the bill.
Pork is pork no matter how you try to justify it after the fact.

 

[drsmith1072]

Enron went under during the Bush administration. You probably think that 9/11 happened under Clinton too.

Try real news outlets next time..

Yep, it went bankrupt during the Bush administration, but all the criminal shenanigans occurred during the Clinton Administration.

So we didn;t find out about the scandal until oct 2001 and yet you are actaully claiming that they stopped before W took office??

So can you prove your assertion that ALL of the criminal shenanigans occurred during the Clinton Administration or did you just make that up??

 

[drsmith1072]

Yeah, I remember that happened on Clinton's watch. I don't recall a huge jump in electricity prices where I lived. It seems only the government of California got snookered by the Enron crooks.

Enron went under during the Bush administration. You probably think that 9/11 happened under Clinton too.

Try real news outlets next time..

A lot of things happened under Clinton's watch. Like certain people taking flying lessons. When the airlines were told they needed to have more secure cockpit doors but the Clinton admin decided to take the campaign cash from the airlines instead of making them go for the more secure cockpit doors.

I'll bet you get your real news from msnbc.

You do realize that they continued taking flying lessons and their planning under W's watch too don't you??

 

[drsmith1072]

Did I say that? What I said is that there is a difference between a subsidy and a tax write off for expenses. I even specifically spelled out some of the subsidies that oil companies do get just to illustrate the difference.

You should be aware that if you start shutting down deductions for expenses your taxes will go up. No more credits for mortgage interest, state sales and employment taxes, children, depreciation, and all the other little things you take for granted and make it possible for 48% of Americans to pay no federal income tax. Go you call it a subsidy when you benefit, or do you think that it means that you get to keep your taxes fair?

Uh yeah you pretty much did say that. If they are given a "tax write off" for their failed business ventures and screwups then the government is essentially subsidizing their failed business vetnures and screwups.

Why should the government cover the costs of their mistakes??

Tax write offs for expenses apply to everyone. Business expenses include depreciation on equipment, interest payments, tax payments to local and state jurisdictions, wages, and myriads of other things. I have no idea why you think they involve nothing more than failed business ventures and screwups.

If you want to make a case for eliminating expenses when determining taxable income, you are certainly free to try. Don't make yourself look like an idiot by calling them subsidies. Subsidies are payments from the government to a business that are intended to keep the prices of something lower than it would otherwise be.

Expenses are the cost of doing business. You take the amount of money a business takes in, subtract those expenses, and tax the profits. That is how taxes have always been figures, and they hopefully always will be figured that way. If the government starts taxing gross income most businesses will collapse overnight.

So your argument is that tax write offs for screwups by oil companies apply to everyone??

Really?? I have to ask because we are NOT talking about everybody we have a limited scope where the focus is oil/energy companies and theis subsidies/write offs. If you want to have a broader discussion I am sure that you can start your own thread.

BTW I was basing my limited scope of what they involve based on the limited scope that you supplied in your post. In other words I was addressing what you wrote. If you have an issue with that then maybe you should get more specific in the future.

Your need to attack me personally shows that you are more out to get the messenger than you are to respond to the actual message. I wonder why?

Oh and you didn't really answer my questions but then I didn't expect that you would.

 

[editec]

“We’re talking about reforming the safety net, the welfare system; we also want to get rid of corporate welfare. And corporate welfare goes to agribusiness companies, energy companies, financial services companies, so we propose to repeal all that,” Ryan said in response to a question about oil subsidies.



Read more: Ryan calls for ending oil subsidies - Robin Bravender - POLITICO.com

Is this just Ryan trying to get people off of his "kill MediCare" message?

I suspect that generally speaking all these industrial subsidies are little more than corporate welfare.

CERTAINLY those given to oil companies are no longer warranted, even though I will admit that at one time they might have make sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do realize that even ron paul doesn't walk the walk especially when it comes to things like earmarks which claims to be against een though he requests them but doesn't return the money when it goes to his own state, don't you? LOL

It is interesting that you call him out for being inconsistent simply because you assume you know his position. Newsflash, he does not oppose earmarks. You seem to assume that, just because the Republicans are jumping on the earmark bandwagon, Paul must be on it also.

The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch.

So, in many ways what we are doing here in the Congress is reneging on our responsibilities. Because it is the responsibility of the Congress to earmark. That’s our job. We’re supposed to tell the people how we’re spending the money. Not to just deliver it in the lump sum to the executive branch and let them deal with it. And then it’s dealt with behind the scenes. Actually, if you voted against all the earmarks there would be less transparency. Earmarks really allow transparency and we know exactly where the money is being spent.

You know, the big issue is the spending. If you don’t like the spending, vote against the bill. But the principle of earmarking is something that we have to think about because we’re just further undermining the responsibilities that we have here in the Congress. And if we want to get things under control it won’t be because we vote against an earmark and make a big deal of attacking earmarks because it doesn’t address the subject.

Ron Paul on Earmarks

So he votes against the bills because they have "pork" in them including some that goes to his state but his argument is that they should bring it back the their states because if they don't spend it someone else will??

He is bascially arguing that pork is bad so I am voting against the bills that contain it BUT since it is going to be spent anyway I might as well get mine as the earmarks get slapped on to the bill.
Pork is pork no matter how you try to justify it after the fact.

He does not vote against bills because they have pork in them. Try again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Uh yeah you pretty much did say that. If they are given a "tax write off" for their failed business ventures and screwups then the government is essentially subsidizing their failed business vetnures and screwups.

Why should the government cover the costs of their mistakes??

Tax write offs for expenses apply to everyone. Business expenses include depreciation on equipment, interest payments, tax payments to local and state jurisdictions, wages, and myriads of other things. I have no idea why you think they involve nothing more than failed business ventures and screwups.

If you want to make a case for eliminating expenses when determining taxable income, you are certainly free to try. Don't make yourself look like an idiot by calling them subsidies. Subsidies are payments from the government to a business that are intended to keep the prices of something lower than it would otherwise be.

Expenses are the cost of doing business. You take the amount of money a business takes in, subtract those expenses, and tax the profits. That is how taxes have always been figures, and they hopefully always will be figured that way. If the government starts taxing gross income most businesses will collapse overnight.

So your argument is that tax write offs for screwups by oil companies apply to everyone??

Really?? I have to ask because we are NOT talking about everybody we have a limited scope where the focus is oil/energy companies and theis subsidies/write offs. If you want to have a broader discussion I am sure that you can start your own thread.

BTW I was basing my limited scope of what they involve based on the limited scope that you supplied in your post. In other words I was addressing what you wrote. If you have an issue with that then maybe you should get more specific in the future.

Your need to attack me personally shows that you are more out to get the messenger than you are to respond to the actual message. I wonder why?

Oh and you didn't really answer my questions but then I didn't expect that you would.

No, my argument is that tax write offs for expenses apply to everybody. You keep trying to make this about nonexistent subsidies going toward failed business ventures that oil companies get that no one else does. Everyone, including you, gets to deduct expenses before they figure out how much they owe in taxes. There is significant difference between gross and net income, one that anyone who takes basic accounting understands. Taxes have always been charged against net income.

Just for the record, I do not need to attack you, or anyone else, personally. I just enjoy doing it because I like to see idiots whine about people being mean to them. The ones who ignore it are the ones I respect. Thank you for making my day a little brighter.

Did you ask questions that I did not address? I thought I had dealt with everything you asked by pointing out that you have no idea what you are talking about. I must have missed them while I was laughing over the general stupidity of your posts. I do not feel like going back and laughing at you more, so if you have actual questions feel free to repeat them.

 

[VaYank5150]

So, when can we expect Ryan and the GOP to update their budget cutting proposals to include subsidies to these oil companies?

 

[drsmith1072]

It is interesting that you call him out for being inconsistent simply because you assume you know his position. Newsflash, he does not oppose earmarks. You seem to assume that, just because the Republicans are jumping on the earmark bandwagon, Paul must be on it also.

Ron Paul on Earmarks

So he votes against the bills because they have "pork" in them including some that goes to his state but his argument is that they should bring it back the their states because if they don't spend it someone else will??

He is bascially arguing that pork is bad so I am voting against the bills that contain it BUT since it is going to be spent anyway I might as well get mine as the earmarks get slapped on to the bill.
Pork is pork no matter how you try to justify it after the fact.

He does not vote against bills because they have pork in them. Try again.

Then explain it. You chiming in telling me I am wrong even though i based my argument on his own statements and positions is not good enough. Show me how i got his comments wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So he votes against the bills because they have "pork" in them including some that goes to his state but his argument is that they should bring it back the their states because if they don't spend it someone else will??

He is bascially arguing that pork is bad so I am voting against the bills that contain it BUT since it is going to be spent anyway I might as well get mine as the earmarks get slapped on to the bill.
Pork is pork no matter how you try to justify it after the fact.

He does not vote against bills because they have pork in them. Try again.

Then explain it. You chiming in telling me I am wrong even though i based my argument on his own statements and positions is not good enough. Show me how i got his comments wrong.

He has always voted against any bill that increases spending. If you were basing your statements on what he said you would know that he does not oppose earmarks, he opposes government spending money in general.

 

[drsmith1072]

He does not vote against bills because they have pork in them. Try again.

Then explain it. You chiming in telling me I am wrong even though i based my argument on his own statements and positions is not good enough. Show me how i got his comments wrong.

He has always voted against any bill that increases spending. If you were basing your statements on what he said you would know that he does not oppose earmarks, he opposes government spending money in general.

Then please show HOW I am wrong.

I know that NOW he supports earmarks because he says they allow for transparancy however, they are also PORK which he CLAIMS to be against. Furthermore, one of his arguments in favor of earmarks is to bring it home because if he doesn't it's going to be spent by someone else anyway.

He is trying to rationalize being both for and against pork.

If I am wrong pleae SHOW how i am wrong.

 

[Too Tall]

and its not a subsidy its a tax break.

I copied this from an article and forgot where I got it.

Here are a few of the items which are being incorrectly identified as “subsidies” inside the beltway:

Intangible Drilling Costs – Companies which engage purely in energy exploration and discovery can recover their costs related to exploration at tax time at a rate of 100%. This lessens the burden on energy providers for the number of “dry holes” which may be found in the process. Integrated companies (i.e. “big oil”) can recover these exploration costs at 70%. Not a subsidy.

Domestic Manufacturer’s Deduction (Section 199) – A deduction (not a credit) equal to 9% of income earned from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the United States, is available to every single taxpayer who qualifies in the U.S. The oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, is limited to a 6% deduction.

Percentage Depletion – The percentage depletion deduction is a cost recovery method that allows taxpayers to recover their lease investment in a mineral interest through a percentage of gross income from a well. This depletion method is not available to companies that produce oil as well as refine and market it (i.e. “Big Oil”.) This is available to all extractive industries (gold, iron, clay, etc) in the US and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industr

y.

 

[drsmith1072]

and its not a subsidy its a tax break.

I copied this from an article and forgot where I got it.

Here are a few of the items which are being incorrectly identified as “subsidies” inside the beltway:

Intangible Drilling Costs – Companies which engage purely in energy exploration and discovery can recover their costs related to exploration at tax time at a rate of 100%. This lessens the burden on energy providers for the number of “dry holes” which may be found in the process. Integrated companies (i.e. “big oil”) can recover these exploration costs at 70%. Not a subsidy.

Domestic Manufacturer’s Deduction (Section 199) – A deduction (not a credit) equal to 9% of income earned from manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the United States, is available to every single taxpayer who qualifies in the U.S. The oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, is limited to a 6% deduction.

Percentage Depletion – The percentage depletion deduction is a cost recovery method that allows taxpayers to recover their lease investment in a mineral interest through a percentage of gross income from a well. This depletion method is not available to companies that produce oil as well as refine and market it (i.e. “Big Oil”.) This is available to all extractive industries (gold, iron, clay, etc) in the US and is in no way unique to the oil and gas industr

y.

Nice but until you provide a link this is just something that you might have created. Furthermore, without a link how can the soure be verified as credible??

The end result is, even if you claim it's not a subsidy, the tax payers ends up subsidizing the cost of "dry holes" for these companies.
Whty should they get this "break"?

Perhaps they should have some personal responsibility and make certain that they are drilling in the right place instead of just drilling anywhere they feel like it because they know that they will get reimbursed for the cost of their mistakes??