Republicans refuse to repeal taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

FTFY.

Yes, GE should pay taxes. Instead of us giving profitable companies billions a year in tax breaks. You know, because we are supposedly broke?

So: are you personally in favor of oil company subsidies, or not?



Tax credits for non-oil renewable energy startups or alternative energy? Billions towards our deficit? Rather than keeping the huge long-term subsidies to record-profit oil industries?

Sounds like a remarkably better idea. Too bad the Republicans filibustered it simply because it would have passed out of the Senate, with 51 votes, as our Constitution requires.

As has been said here many, many times over 'record profits' is all relative. 10% is hardly a record profit, the fact that they move more product and have higher volume skews the numbers to make them look outlandish but you cannot say that a 10% profit is anything special. At least they pay some taxes, unlike Jeff Immelt (aka Obamas lapdog) and GE.
If you are taking that extra cash and 'investing' it into alternative energy concepts, then yes I am against it. That has proven to be a an industry best left to the angels and private corporations.

[dellinger63]

Stop the money flow!

No new ceiling raise until a balanced budget is passed.

Period!

[Danzig]

it's my opinion that no business should receive a subsidy ever. that's not the governments place. andrew jackson said back in his day that tariffs should be levied for one thing, income to the govt. not to help a business, not to protect it's product. i'd venture a guess that he would also be completely against subsidies. i agree with his opinion completely. cutting a subsidy only in order to give it to another, preferred type of business is no better than letting the money continue going to the first business. either way, it's a bad thing and only engenders more moves by more businesses to lobby as hard as possible to get in on the money pipeline.
of course jackson truly was a man of the people-and he remained that way throughout his two terms.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's my opinion that no business should receive a subsidy ever. that's not the governments place. andrew jackson said back in his day that tariffs should be levied for one thing, income to the govt. not to help a business, not to protect it's product. i'd venture a guess that he would also be completely against subsidies. i agree with his opinion completely. cutting a subsidy only in order to give it to another, preferred type of business is no better than letting the money continue going to the first business. either way, it's a bad thing and only engenders more moves by more businesses to lobby as hard as possible to get in on the money pipeline.
of course jackson truly was a man of the people-and he remained that way throughout his two terms.

So you are opposed then to state gov'ts giving slot money to racetracks, then? Because that's a very clear example of a subsidy.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So you are opposed then to state gov'ts giving slot money to racetracks, then? Because that's a very clear example of a subsidy.

i was talking about the federal govt, not the states. that's why i referenced andrew jackson, with the discussion going on about the vote by the feds.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i was talking about the federal govt, not the states. that's why i referenced andrew jackson, with the discussion going on about the vote by the feds.

What's the difference? It's still government.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

What's the difference? It's still government.

there really isn't one, is there? i hadn't ever thought about it on a state case, only on the federal level. the federal govt was never supposed to become this bloated monster it's become. if it had stuck only to the areas it was supposed to, how would things be now? we'd have more of our tax dollars remaining locally and regionally, where it could be better managed-where the local and state govts have a far more realistic view of what their states wants/needs are. if the state populace decided they wanted to subsidize a local/state business, they'd be within their rights to do so.

on the face of it, no, no government should be subsidizing a business. after all, how does a govt decide what business they should favor, and which they should not? we all know the answer to that. is it the governments place to do that? no. it wasn't when the eric canal was first put into planning, nor when the first toll roads were put into place.
the federal govt. was never planned as a monolith to take and take, and then redistribute. local, regional and state are dependent on their citizens to decide all that, as it was meant to be and should be.