GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies

[Stephanie]

It's a political trick. Barry could have ended oil subsidies at the stroke of a pen when he had a majority in both houses but he didn't want to do it then and he doesn't want to do it now.

You'll burst their little bubble about how it's ALL the Republicans fault..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Senate Republicans Thursday shot down President Obama's plan to cut off oil companies' tax breaks.

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News

Even giving oil companies billions in subsidies hasn't brought down gas prices.

What is the Republican Plan?

GOP plan is to keep giving corporations trillions in welfare getting kickbacks while blaming the problems of trailer park republicans on the poor black man getting a few dollars a month.

I thought the GOP voted against the Export-Import Bank re authorization last month.

Wait, you are only complaining about the "corporate welfare" you don't like.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you're a fiscal conservative like me, than you should have a problem with all welfare, including corporate welfare.

Strategic investments that can help bring something along and into the marketplace is fine with me, but handing tens of billions every year to oil companies just doesn't make sense.

It doesn't solve the entire deficit picture, but it's another piece of a puzzle to help put us back on more solid fiscal ground.

No one is handing money to oil companies.

The "subsidies" Obama is talking about are nothing more than standard tax deductions available to every manufacturer in this country. If you were actually a fiscal conservative you would know that, and either call for an end to all such tax breaks, or tell anyone that calls for ending subsidies on oil companies out for their lies. The fact that you actually support ending oil subsidies, yet want to give other industries subsidies, proves you are either a liar or a fool.

 

[driveby]

So, as oddball pointed out, the op doesn't know the difference between oil subsidies and a hole in the ground, keep up the bad work dean.......

 

[starcraftzzz]

Senate Republicans Thursday shot down President Obama's plan to cut off oil companies' tax breaks.

GOP blocks Obama's bid to end oil subsidies - CBS News

Even giving oil companies billions in subsidies hasn't brought down gas prices.

What is the Republican Plan?

GOP plan is to keep giving corporations trillions in welfare getting kickbacks while blaming the problems of trailer park republicans on the poor black man getting a few dollars a month.

I thought the GOP voted against the Export-Import Bank re authorization last month.

Wait, you are only complaining about the "corporate welfare" you don't like.

Export-Import Bank of the United States to Establish Full-Time Presence in Atlanta, Detroit,... -- DETROIT, March 6, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
^Over the period of 5 years the export-import bank reduced the deficit by 2billion
^The bank authorized 33billion dollars in export subsidies, helping maintain 300,000 jobs

 

[Quantum Windbag]

GOP plan is to keep giving corporations trillions in welfare getting kickbacks while blaming the problems of trailer park republicans on the poor black man getting a few dollars a month.

I thought the GOP voted against the Export-Import Bank re authorization last month.

Wait, you are only complaining about the "corporate welfare" you don't like.

Export-Import Bank of the United States to Establish Full-Time Presence in Atlanta, Detroit,... -- DETROIT, March 6, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
^Over the period of 5 years the export-import bank reduced the deficit by 2billion
^The bank authorized 33billion dollars in export subsidies, helping maintain 300,000 jobs

That was funny.

They spent $33 billion, and saved $2 billion. More Obamath.

 

[mudwhistle]

All Obama needs to do is announce that he's opening lands to drilling and the price will tank......the same way Bush did to get the price under $2.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I thought the GOP voted against the Export-Import Bank re authorization last month.

Wait, you are only complaining about the "corporate welfare" you don't like.

Export-Import Bank of the United States to Establish Full-Time Presence in Atlanta, Detroit,... -- DETROIT, March 6, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
^Over the period of 5 years the export-import bank reduced the deficit by 2billion
^The bank authorized 33billion dollars in export subsidies, helping maintain 300,000 jobs

That was funny.

They spent $33 billion, and saved $2 billion. More Obamath.

See this is how stupid you are. You think loaning out 33billion and getting paid back 35billion for those loans means you lost money.
SO come back when you have an ability to think above a 3rd grade level

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Export-Import Bank of the United States to Establish Full-Time Presence in Atlanta, Detroit,... -- DETROIT, March 6, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
^Over the period of 5 years the export-import bank reduced the deficit by 2billion
^The bank authorized 33billion dollars in export subsidies, helping maintain 300,000 jobs

That was funny.

They spent $33 billion, and saved $2 billion. More Obamath.

See this is how stupid you are. You think loaning out 33billion and getting paid back 35billion for those loans means you lost money.
SO come back when you have an ability to think above a 3rd grade level

No, it shows how stupid you are.

Subsidies are not loans, they are money the government spends to support a business. The $2 billion they made only exists on paper.

Congress is currently debating whether to reauthorize the charter for the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Most of the debate has focused on whether the economic and public policy rationale still exists for the federal government to involve itself in helping private firms finance their exports. Other statutory requirements also are under review, including provisions that direct the Ex-Im bank to provide export-related loans for small businesses and green technologies.
Some lawmakers have questioned whether the Ex-Im bank (first created in 1934) should still be wading so heavily into private markets – effectively picking winners and losers with its loans and loan guarantees. Defenders of the bank argue that the programs simultaneously help create domestic jobs and level the playing field with international competitors (who often receive financing and subsidies from their respective governments). Another key argument for supporters is that not only does the bank serve those ends at no cost to taxpayers, but it actually earns a profit.
The problem with that last claim – which lawmakers to date have not focused in on – is that the Ex-Im bank’s profits are almost surely an accounting illusion. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has cautioned policymakers that the government’s official accounting rules effectively force budget analysts to understate the cost of loan programs like those managed by the Ex-Im bank.
These rules – mandated in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) – understate the cost government loan programs impose on taxpayers by excluding, or not factoring in, the cost for market risk. The current rules require that budget estimates discount expected loan performance using the interest rates on risk-free U.S. Treasury debt rather than a rate that matches the riskiness of the loan itself. That flaw makes it appear as if the government can offer far more favorable loan terms than what a purely private entity would charge without imposing a cost on taxpayers. The government’s advantage disappears, however, when budget estimates account for market risk – the risk that losses on the loans could be higher during a weak economy when defaults will be more frequent and costly.

Critics of the Export-Import Bank Have a New Weapon at Their Disposal: Fair-Value Accounting | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century

Fair-Value Accounting Provides a More Comprehensive Measure of Federal Costs

Fair-value accounting recognizes market risk—the component of financial risk that remains even after investors have diversified their portfolios as much as possible, and that arises from shifts in current and expected macroeconomic conditions—as a cost to the government. To incorporate the cost of such risk, fair-value accounting calculates present values using market-based discount rates. Thus, fair-value estimates often imply larger costs to the government for issuing or guaranteeing a loan than do FCRA-based estimates.
Using FCRA-based estimates instead of fair-value estimates has important consequences for the way policymakers might perceive the cost of credit assistance:

• The costs reported in the budget are generally lower than the costs to even the most efficient private financial institutions for providing credit on the same terms;
• The budgetary costs are almost always lower than those of other federal spending that imposes equivalent true costs on taxpayers; and
• Purchases of loans at market prices appear to make money for the government and, conversely, sales of loans at market prices appear to result in losses.

Fair-Value Accounting Has Challenges

• Government agencies would incur training expenses and the cost of developing new valuation models.
• Fair-value cost estimates would be somewhat more volatile, although factors that also affect FCRA estimates would continue to be the main cause of volatility.
• Fair-value estimating would require analysts to make additional judgments that could introduce inconsistencies in how costs of different programs are evaluated.

CBO | Fair-Value Accounting for Federal Credit Programs

Please, keep throwing around numbers when you don't know what you are talking about. I actually understand them and will delight in educating anyone who is willing to buy in your government math that real world math gets different answers.

 

[hortysir]

sub·si·dy/ˈsəbsidē/

Noun:

• A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business

 

[Quantum Windbag]

sub·si·dy/ˈsəbsidē/

Noun:

• A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business

You obviously don't speak Obamalish.

Subsidy: (n) Any tax break that I don't like, even if I use it myself.

 

[hortysir]

sub·si·dy/ˈsəbsidē/

Noun:

• A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business

You obviously don't speak Obamalish.

Subsidy: (n) Any tax break that I don't like, even if I use it myself.

If they don't like the tax code, they could always re-write it and simplify it.......

 

[Oddball]

United States military deployments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Environmental Law Institute
http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/oil-gas-report.pdf

The US gives massive subsidies to the oil companies via providing security, cheap fees for land use, tax breaks, infrastructure and a host of other goodies.

wiki linked article does not even contain the word "oil" or "subsidy".

epa document is totally unrelated to this thread

ELI story is gloss and dodge rhetoric lacking detail or support

Maybe you can pick out some relevence for us from these links?

Oh really?

The United States has been using it's military to knock over countries in the middle east and install friendly governments. It isn't doing that because it likes Humus. It's doing that to exploit the natural resources of the region. Namely oil. I'd say that counts as a subsidy.

Additionally the epa documents land use by oil companies. Which generally comes on the cheap..another subsidy.

So along with providing all sorts of goodies..it grants some very profitable companies tax breaks. Some of the breaks have the government owing Oil companies, money.

It's disgusting.

Tax breaks and land leases aren't subsides, Bubba.

For dickweeds who like to parse and semantically juggle on terms like "socialist", progressive socialists seem to have no such nuanced language when throwing around the word "subsidy".

SUBSIDY

 

[saveliberty]

I'd agree to end all energy subsidies.

 

[rdean]

Which oil subsidies?

C'mon...Start naming them.

Uh, the ones congress is voting on? They're voting on something. Think about it. Reason it out. Would they be voting on oil subsidies if there weren't any?

 

[rdean]

wiki linked article does not even contain the word "oil" or "subsidy".

epa document is totally unrelated to this thread

ELI story is gloss and dodge rhetoric lacking detail or support

Maybe you can pick out some relevence for us from these links?

Oh really?

The United States has been using it's military to knock over countries in the middle east and install friendly governments. It isn't doing that because it likes Humus. It's doing that to exploit the natural resources of the region. Namely oil. I'd say that counts as a subsidy.

Additionally the epa documents land use by oil companies. Which generally comes on the cheap..another subsidy.

So along with providing all sorts of goodies..it grants some very profitable companies tax breaks. Some of the breaks have the government owing Oil companies, money.

It's disgusting.

Tax breaks and land leases aren't subsides, Bubba.

For dickweeds who like to parse and semantically juggle on terms like "socialist", progressive socialists seem to have no such nuanced language when throwing around the word "subsidy".

SUBSIDY

Let's start in 2006 and go forward:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/business/14oil.html?pagewanted=all

New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government.

How many links o I have to post. I know right winger won't read any of them. They never do. Afraid they might learn something that will shatter their delusions.

 

[Oddball]

Low rent isn't the gubmint paying the companies to drill, which is a subsidy.

I could post all the links which properly define the word, but dishonest moonbat hacks like you don't give a flying fuck.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which oil subsidies?

C'mon...Start naming them.

Uh, the ones congress is voting on? They're voting on something. Think about it. Reason it out. Would they be voting on oil subsidies if there weren't any?

They aren't voting on anything, they are getting drunk.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh really?

The United States has been using it's military to knock over countries in the middle east and install friendly governments. It isn't doing that because it likes Humus. It's doing that to exploit the natural resources of the region. Namely oil. I'd say that counts as a subsidy.

Additionally the epa documents land use by oil companies. Which generally comes on the cheap..another subsidy.

So along with providing all sorts of goodies..it grants some very profitable companies tax breaks. Some of the breaks have the government owing Oil companies, money.

It's disgusting.

Tax breaks and land leases aren't subsides, Bubba.

For dickweeds who like to parse and semantically juggle on terms like "socialist", progressive socialists seem to have no such nuanced language when throwing around the word "subsidy".

SUBSIDY

Let's start in 2006 and go forward:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/business/14oil.html?pagewanted=all

New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government.

How many links o I have to post. I know right winger won't read any of them. They never do. Afraid they might learn something that will shatter their delusions.

You want the government to sell oil? How is that working out in Venezuela and Argentina?

 

[Mr. H.]

Oh really?

The United States has been using it's military to knock over countries in the middle east and install friendly governments. It isn't doing that because it likes Humus. It's doing that to exploit the natural resources of the region. Namely oil. I'd say that counts as a subsidy.

Additionally the epa documents land use by oil companies. Which generally comes on the cheap..another subsidy.

So along with providing all sorts of goodies..it grants some very profitable companies tax breaks. Some of the breaks have the government owing Oil companies, money.

It's disgusting.

Tax breaks and land leases aren't subsides, Bubba.

For dickweeds who like to parse and semantically juggle on terms like "socialist", progressive socialists seem to have no such nuanced language when throwing around the word "subsidy".

SUBSIDY

Let's start in 2006 and go forward:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/business/14oil.html?pagewanted=all

New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government.

How many links o I have to post. I know right winger won't read any of them. They never do. Afraid they might learn something that will shatter their delusions.

Your post isn't exactly on topic. And this being a 6 year old article, maybe you could update us regarding this particular royalty relief and how much "lost revenue" actually ensued. While you're at it maybe you can find some numbers regarding the cumulative taxes the government collected from the companies involved.