Do Republicans Favor Balanced Budgets?

Oil company execs testified before Congress in 2005 that tax subsidies were not needed for oil exploration when oil was 50.00 a barrel. They've done a complete about face by testifying subsidies are now needed when the price per barrel is hovering at 100.00
 
Picking out 5 companies just goes beyond silly. I don't see how those Senators look themselves in the mirror in the morning. What idiots.
 
how much do we spend or should I say "invest" in "green energy"?

•Recovery Act Investments in Clean Energy
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included more than $80 billion in the generation of renewable energy sources, expanding manufacturing capacity for clean energy technology, advancing vehicle and fuel technologies, and building a bigger, better, smarter electric grid, all while creating new, sustainable jobs.
 
So many of you guys are unable to talk about oil without trying to bash renewables. You are like a dysfunctional relative who says he has no faults because his spouse has faults instead.

Oil gets way more than renewables- and it isn't even close. So- you may want to give up that argument.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
McBrett, I think most people on this thread have said they'd favor cutting all special tax favors across all industries. That is not bashing renewables. But for Congress to pluck out 5 companies to hit with special tax penalties is laughable and I would expect it to be even illegal. This entire exercise is a dog and pony show and an offensive waste of time and taxpayer money.
 
McBrett, way to move the goal posts or was I missing where the rest of us were talking about INTERNATIONAL subsidies? The link you posted is discussing international subsidies of oil. Directly beneath the link you posted was this :
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
GTT, Oil,

The issue I am pointing out is- the fact that Sector A gets some help does not justify nor imply Sector B deserves or does not deserve help. People in fossil fuels, when attacked, seem to knee jerk to clean energy every time- even though the number of wind turbines and solar panels we have has virtually zero effect on the demand or economics of oil.

Where these 2 industries further differ in regards to subsidies is- Oil, unlike any other industry in the world, has its companies regularly set records in American business for profits. As in 10 or 11 digits in net income, per quarter. If you claim you want to balance a budget- this would probably be the last sector you would want to subsidize. Secondly, another reason clean energy and most other sectors should not be compared- is only oil carries the sheer scale and amount of negative externalities that in fact cost us much more money than the subsidies themselves. They include health related, military conflicts, climate related, geopolitical dependence on adversaries and the loss of human life.

Even if you removed all oil subsidies today- you could further argue that additional taxes should be levied to compensate for the externalities that it costs us to secure this type of energy supply, when viable alternatives are within reaching distance technology wise in the next 5-10 years, if not already.
 
Meanwhile, oil, coal and gas received $557 billion in subsidies from the 37 countries that represent 95% of global subsidisation of fossil fuels in 2008, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
__________________________________________________

This is because many if not most of those companies are national entities in those countries. Exxon doesnt get a subsidy when it goes and drills in a foreign nation. it gets taxed, extremely high in many places. it deducts those tax payments in the US, otherwise, the projects would not be economical. If you want to call this a subsidy, that fine but then you would have to believe that all money earned in the United States is owned by the government and by their grace, we are allowed to keep that portion the government sees fit and it is all a subsidy. its an interesting interpretation of what this country stands for....you know, freedom and all.
 
So at least we've confirmed that this issue is all about punishing select industries and it has nothing to do with balancing the budget as per the title of the OP. As long as we are clear about that we can continue the discussion I suppose.

I'd like to punish Microsoft for the weird error messages I get on my computer. That ticks me off. And for the record, they're also one of the most profitable companies in the world. So, surely they qualify for one of these hate taxes.
 
Look at the quadrupled deficit before and after Reagan and W and you'll have your answer.

The hypocritical Republicans only want to balance the budget when the democrats have to pay the political price for it.
The Link
 
77
"So tell me this is anything other than a political stunt. "

Yes OR to put it another way if it were not a political stunt wouldn't the Dems have hauled EVERY CEO of eveery busines in every industry and demanded they give up their "tax breaks"?

Why just oil?
Anyone ?
 
How much has been "invested" in wind energy in the past 30 years? How much energy does it produce for us yearly? less than 2%???

nuclear energy biggest bang for our buck.
 
Now 77
rant.gif

Stop giving them ideas

did you notice how many of the ideas you posted have been thrown out by Dems?
 
msdw- sure, if you put it in a remove all subsidies from all industries- that's certainly a topic worth discussing. I'd like to see the numbers run, but initially- it could be a very good idea.

Looks like Rex had a mentally sound Friday night- nice to see I have a fan. Sorry the links don't jibe with your beliefs- and yes, oil was commercially used in the late 1890's, so, it's actually closer to 120 years old, commercial wise.
 
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