So much for Republican support for an unfettered free market

[JMohegan]

We can get to that next.

Why do taxpayers subsidize the oil industry? Does anybody have any idea?

Yes.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01

 

[bronzeage]

Nice deflection. Why don't we do away with all corporate subsidies, including those for the "Green Industries."

I have no problem with that. I don't receive any tax subsidies.

As long as oil companies have taxpayer subsidies to offset expenses, their product will appear cheaper than alternative energy sources.

Why are we distorting true market forces? Oil company taxpayer subsidies predate green industries. Why do we subsidize the oil companies?

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

I have no problem with that. I don't receive any tax subsidies.

As long as oil companies have taxpayer subsidies to offset expenses, their product will appear cheaper than alternative energy sources.

Why are we distorting true market forces? Oil company taxpayer subsidies predate green industries. Why do we subsidize the oil companies?

Why do we subsidize farmers, cattle, sugar, lobster......the list goes on.
The answer you get is to protect the little guy.

 

[bronzeage]

Thats bull Bronze, they don't receive tax deductions that aren't available to all other corporations. Think about how cheap your gas would be if governments didn't tax the shit out of it. Why is the tax code full of thousands of such "subsidies" for all manner of Americans?

Telling me, "everybody does it" does not explain why we do it. How does a subsidy become a deduction? I have tax deductions, but no subsidies.

You haven't told me why oil companies have subsidies. We can move onto the thousands of other subsidies after we solve this puzzle.

Why do we subsidize farmers, cattle, sugar, lobster......the list goes on.
The answer you get is to protect the little guy.

I had no idea ExxonMobil was a little guy. From what are we protecting them?

I am beginning to think there are no free market economists on this board.

Okay, so far we have learned that customers pay taxes, not corporations, all corporations get subsidies, and subsidies protect little guys. Still no clue as to why we do it, although the little guy theory is interesting.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Bronze, you may have change tack.

Maybe ask what we'd lose, if we stopped subsidizing oil. (Or what form that subsidy takes...)

 

[bronzeage]

You might just as well have asked, how did a deduction become a subsidy?

If you don't know, just say so. Actually, you don't have to say so. Just don't play the free market card any more.

You like oil company subsidies and don't like green industry subsidies. That is your right. We'll be paying for them for a long time.

 

[bronzeage]

Bronze, you may have change tack.

Maybe ask what we'd lose, if we stopped subsidizing oil. (Or what form that subsidy takes...)

It may sound strange, but if we stop subsidizing oil, we would have to pay the real price for it. That might be higher or lower.

If the price of gas is set by supply and demand, without government subsidies to influence the price, other sources of energy could become competitive. This would bring more competition and supply to the energy market, which will reduce prices.

Maybe the reason we have taxpayer subsidies is to keep us forever dependent on oil as our primary source of energy. As long as we are stuck with oil and our "pay any price as long as we get our fix" market system, we will forever be stuck defending oil with the lives of our soldiers.

Somebody explain why I'm wrong.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sonny Limatina]

It may sound strange, but if we stop subsidizing oil, we would have to pay the real price for it. That might be higher or lower.

If the price of gas is set by supply and demand, without government subsidies to influence the price, other sources of energy could become competitive. This would bring more competition and supply to the energy market, which will reduce prices.

Maybe the reason we have taxpayer subsidies is to keep us forever dependent on oil as our primary source of energy. As long as we are stuck with oil and our "pay any price as long as we get our fix" market system, we will forever be stuck defending oil with the lives of our soldiers.

Somebody explain why I'm wrong.

You're right, although I actually thought you were headed in a slightly different direction.

Everyone always mentions "dependence on foreign oil." Of course we have no such dependence, we have oil of our own, and could have more any time we chose. We also routinely glibly mention fighting wars for oil, as you touch on. But again, that's only true on the surface. We have oil. We don't need to fight anyone for theirs.

Yet we "subsidize" the price of this "other" oil with the full force of our military, either actively or passively.

Why?

The Middle East is probably the most geopolitically fragile region in the world. Allegiances cascade off in different (opposing) directions almost country by country. They reverberate out to the US and part of Europe on hand, Russia and the rest of Europe on another, the Asian subcontinent (and primary continent) on a third. And all those allegiance-cascades are all gathered in a tight, tense little plexus of oil-producing coutries.

Being those countries' best customer gives us influence in the region we would not normally have. More than that, it gives us a reason (or in the case of the Iraq war, a premise) to be there, war ships and all, that we would not otherwise have. Got to protect out investment, don't you know.

If oil falls out of favor in the U.S., our foothold in this region slips. Whoever controls that region, controls the world. We intend to have it continue to be us.

 

[mercury14]

Can someone explain why the taxpayers are subsidizing a profitable industry?

The Republican party and their constituents can.


(right???)

 

[mercury14]

What I love is the Republican defict reduction philosophy when it comes to things like Medicare and WIC: "everyone is going to have to pay."

"Oops no not the biggest, most profitable companies we have..."

Repubs bitch about waivers from the new health care system while engaging in waiver-making of monumental proportions in their own policy writing. Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

To answer BRONZEAGE, who benefits from the government help?

Politicians benefit when some of the help returns to them in the form of cash contributions, they benefit again if the help makes gasoline seem cheaper than it really is, and they benefit if the help makes EXXON stock attractive to pension funds. Plus John Kerry owns a diaper load of EXXON stock.

Recall how David Cameron bitch-slapped Obama at the White House when Obama threatened to hurt BP's profitability. Obama never mentioned BP and the Gulf mess again.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Recall how David Cameron bitch-slapped Obama at the White House when Obama threatened to hurt BP's profitability. Obama never mentioned BP and the Gulf mess again.

Don't remember that ever happening. Some of us don't live in alternate universes, though, so...

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Don't remember that ever happening. Some of us don't live in alternate universes, though, so...

He can't be wrong. He said it right here on the internet, with periods at the end of both sentences.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

He can't be wrong. He said it right here on the internet, with periods at the end of both sentences.

Fuck. Not even Perry Mason himself could argue against that iron-clad technicality.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UzHBV0VY1_M/TZ5Oa0ANP1I/AAAAAAAAAls/60DFDtG7XDE/s1600/Perry%2BMason.jpg

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Don't remember that ever happening. Some of us don't live in alternate universes, though, so...

Its more like some of us dont live in this universe, seeing how little awareness they have and how much they miss.

Return to last May when Obama was threatening to jail BP people and fine the company into bankruptcy, then note that David Cameron flew to Washington, had a conference with Obama, and that was the end of the Yomama's melodrama.

If it was a snake it woulda bit you.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Its more like some of us dont live in this universe, seeing how little awareness they have and how much they miss.

Return to last May when Obama was threatening to jail BP people and fine the company into bankruptcy, then note that David Cameron flew to Washington, had a conference with Obama, and that was the end of the Yomama's melodrama.

If it was a snake it woulda bit you.

You are aware that the opposite happened, right? That Obama convinced BP to pay $20 billion that it didn't have, and that the relevant press at the time was wringing its hands that he'd overstepped his bounds?

Aside from that, you're dead on.

The problem with all this is that, while being “tough” and “kicking ass” and “twisting arms” may well be politically popular, especially when the target is so unpopular, it’s well beyond the legitimate power of the presidency. As Conn Carroll puts it:

Making “offers you can’t refuse” may be a great way to run the mob, but it is no way to run a country.

BP is being forced to assume liabilities to which it is almost certainly not legally obligated and doing so outside the judicial process by which such things are supposed to be decided. Presidents have enormous power, though, because they can threaten to harm a company’s business.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama-takes-godfather-approach-to-bp/

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Still don't smell like no bitch slap. I guess you can make up all sortsa tall tales about conversations between people you're not privy to just to fill in the blanks, but I do know that when somebody does wrong, the person doing the punishing doesn't go to the person being punished. You get called to the principal's office. The BP thing wasn't the (main) reason Cam came over here during that time even though the issue was most likely part of several issues being discussed between he and Obama. And you don't do "bitch slaps" when you step into someone else's arena.

So, yeah...that...*yaaaawn* Man, that wasn't much of a bite. What's next?

 

[kbate]

This entire process is nothing more than politics - at a time when gas is high the democrats wish to have republicans vote for big oil on a subject that really does not matter.

That is the real hypocrisy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You are aware that the opposite happened, right? That Obama convinced BP to pay $20 billion that it didn't have, and that the relevant press at the time was wringing its hands that he'd overstepped his bounds?

Aside from that, you're dead on.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/obama-takes-godfather-approach-to-bp/

20 Billion is chump change.

 

[JenAltArmy]

tax breaks vs obama kick backs?

did you read how much money obama gave to companies and the union aka kickbacks!?!?!?!?!

Republicans continue to support government intervention, subsidizing, and deficit gift-giving to the oil mega-corporations. When will the hypocrisy end?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110518/ap_on_bi_ge/us_oil_tax_breaks

 

[bronzeage]

tax breaks vs obama kick backs?

did you read how much money obama gave to companies and the union aka kickbacks!?!?!?!?!

Do you support taxpayer subsidies for oil companies?