Do Republicans Favor Balanced Budgets?

Do you mean all Repiblican? Most Republicans? At least two Republican?

Balancing the federal budget is not possible. No intelligent person really wants to balance the budget any time soon.
 
I'm a repub and I'm in favor of doing away with ALL subsidies for ALL companies in EVERY line of business. This means no for oil companies, none for green companies, none for anyone, no subsidies period.

If you're a company and you can't stand on your own two feet then you either get to where you can or you fold. No more GE subsidies or incintives either. No union incintives, nothing. This madness needs to stop.
 
BI
What "subsidies" do these oil companies get?

and
are the tax breaks these oil companies get ONLY go to oil companies?
 
First, this is a retarded thread title.

Second, oil companies do not receive subsidies. Certain posters here who continually maintain that they do are ignorant.
 
Senate Democrats are proposing to increase oil and gas taxes by $21 billion over 10 years and use the money to reduce the deficit. Democrats say this would end unjustified subsidies for profitable companies.
_________________________________________________

21 billion is nothing more than nacy pelosi's bar tab, its a drop in the bucket and it hurts the industry. Exxon was taxed at a 47% rate this past year. Comparable big companies like google for instance is taxed at 18%. The oil companies get the same deductions as any other US company that does business in other countries, meaning, they are able to deduct the taxes they pay in other countries. They are not subsidies. This is nothing more than a political grandstanding move by the government so they can have a boogeyman and pass the blame for their own wastefulness to someone else. Here are some facts.

During the first quarter of this year, Exxon's U.S. operating earnings were $2.6 billion. The rest of Exxon's earnings – more than $8 billion – came from operations in more than 100 countries worldwide.

Here’s a number you won’t hear in Washington: During the first quarter, on those U.S. earnings of $2.6 billion, Exxon incurred tax expenses in the United States of $3.1 billion. Exxon's U.S. tax bill was higher than its U.S. earnings.

That includes income taxes, sales-based taxes and others such as property taxes. But it doesn’t include royalties or lease payments Exxon pays to the government to produce oil and gas on government-controlled lands, which would make the government’s take from its operations even bigger.

Another number you won’t hear in Washington, which also puts Exxon's earnings into context are the earnings relative to Exxon's sales. During the last quarter, Exxon made about 9 cents for every dollar of sales, which is about average for U.S. industries. Exxon earned $10.7 billion in worldwide earnings on worldwide sales of $114 billion. That’s about half (or less) of what companies in pharmaceuticals or computers make, just to name a few. But strangely, there’s not much talk about reducing their tax deductions.

In 2010, Exxon's total tax expenses in the United States was $9.8 billion, which includes an income tax expense of more than $1.6 billion. That $9.8 billion in taxes exceeded Exxon's 2010 U.S. operating earnings of $7.5 billion.

And over the past five years, Exxon incurred a total U.S. tax expense of almost $59 billion, which was $18 billion more than Exxon earned from its U.S. operations during the same period.

Increasing taxes on U.S.-based oil and gas companies only helps international competitors. Our government helps them enough already like when Obama went down to Brazil and gave their nationalized oil company a few billions so we could later buy from them. it also would hurt all of obama's buddies at the unions because their pensions are invested in oil and gas stock. Raising taxes on companies with an already marginal return in its investment is simply stupid. The companies put their money, not the governments, into investment. These big companies are also leading the way into investment in alternative energy possibilities.
 
If we end their "special subsidies" can we also quit putting a "special federal tax" on top of the price of their primary consumer products?

Yeah, that's what I thought.
 
Oil you seem to be more informed about this than most. Can you elaborate the arguments for (and possibly against?) items 2 and 4 from my post above? I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed judgment on those 2.

As for

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
yes, by cutting entitlements too. Dems on board with that?

I am in favor of eliminating tax breaks for oil/gas, farming, "clean energy" etc.
 
Senate Democrats are proposing to increase oil and gas taxes by $21 billion over 10 years and use the money to reduce the deficit. Democrats say this would end unjustified subsidies for profitable companies.
__________________________________________________

Some democrats need to go and take a remedial math class. Last I checked we were borrowing 1 Trillion a year to keep the government in business. I don't know if 21 billion over 10 years is going to reduce much, but as usual, it will hurt the stockholders and possibly quite a few jobs for the smaller oil companies and their contractors. Of course, this is what most new government regulations do, kill the little guy and give the bigger guy a bigger piece of the pie. It's funny that the democrats claim to care about the middle class. They do, but unless you work for a union, they could care less.
 
The dems should be careful, what they wish for. Start cutting back on tax breaks and subsidies and more of the business', they support will be hurt more.
 
While we are ending big company tax breaks, it would surely make sense to take a hard look at GE, right?
 
Actually I'm arguing that this will do little or nothing to balance the budget. These are international companies that just might move more of the operations elsewhere to get more favorable tax incentives. I don't know. Question is, why Conoco and not GE or Microsoft or Boeing or Walmart or GM? I'm sure all of these companies of aggressive acoutants as well.
 
By "seems to be OK with deficit spending" you must mean "is a central plank of their platform".

Look, I'm sorry that your little utopian, wealth distribution, chicken in every pot fantasy has been spoiled by reality. We have to cut the budget before we are in PIGS status (if we are not already). Deal with it.

And cut all subsidies to all private enterprise. Oil, GE, even (gasp) unions. Most of the "subsidies" people cry about for oil companies are really just general tax breaks available for all types of companies, and calling them a subsidy is based on the leftist premise that the government owns everything so anytime it taxes less than 100% it is subsidizing someone. But to the extent there are special subsidies for oil, by all means, get rid of them.

Happy?
 
I'm pretty sure the "beef" is with Dear Leader deciding who gets tax breaks and who doesn't.

More utopian BS plain and simple.
 
A Fair& Flat Tax would solve this problem across the board. Just eliminate loopholes everywhere for everyone. But then, raising money for the government was never the point, was it? It has to be about punishing somebody and "spreading the wealth around" for solialists.

And how happy would the average American be if the federal gasoline tax were eliminated tomorrow? Heck, even Hillary supported that idea once upon a time. Now there's an idea which would actually reduce the old "pain at the pump".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top