Democrats Prep Bill That Would Recover Billions From Oil Cos

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I would like to see the Democrats prep bills that cut spending first.

cutting subsidies IS cutting spending...

No it is not. It is cutting INCOME. Regardless of how you want to classify it, cutting an entitlement program, saves 100% on the dollar. Cutting subsidies to entities that provide jobs and money into the economy does not.

We would still want tax subsidies even if we cut expenses to $0 in order to make sure companies still want to do business here (whether it's State or Federal) to provide the kind of employment and ancillary income (including tax dollars) that feeds teh overall economy. I know Mom & Pop Grocery enjoys the money that comes from the folks that shop there that are employed by the local Exxon refinery.

dude, stopping giving money to a corporation to offset their expenses and taxes IS CUTTING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY BEING SPENT ON THAT CORPORATION!

why are people against farm subsidies but for oil company subsidies? is makes no sense at all..

Jeanwah

I hate to say it, but just because the Dems are prepping this bill, it does not mean that Republicans will allow it to pass. Republicans coming down on Big Oil? I'll believe it when I see it, sadly. :x

Not to mention, Big Oil is bigger than Washington. Like Hell will they ever be regulated, downsized, or replaced or forced to change.

gimmesometruth27

Jeanwah wrote:

I hate to say it, but just because the Dems are prepping this bill, it does not mean that Republicans will allow it to pass. Republicans coming down on Big Oil? I'll believe it when I see it, sadly. :x

Not to mention, Big Oil is bigger than Washington. Like Hell will they ever be regulated, downsized, or replaced or forced to change.

you can guarantee that any republican that votes at all against big oil is not a real republican.

mikepegg44

Jeanwah wrote:

I hate to say it, but just because the Dems are prepping this bill, it does not mean that Republicans will allow it to pass. Republicans coming down on Big Oil? I'll believe it when I see it, sadly. :x

Not to mention, Big Oil is bigger than Washington. Like Hell will they ever be regulated, downsized, or replaced or forced to change.

THEY DONT SET THE PRICE!!!! you cannot just steal a companies profits on a commodity that is traded on the open market.

you can certainly stop giving them subsidies but that is different. going back and trying to tax them and take back money that was already given would be bull shit.

gimmesometruth27

if we are cutting things out of the budget everything should be on the table. we need to cut defense obviously, but we also need to stop giving money to big business who clearly can not only survive but thrive without that money. if we stopped all subsidies to exxon they would still turm mega profits. even if you raise taxes on them they will reap mega profits. this business environment is clearly working too well for them. when is the last time exxon actually LOST money in a quarter?

Shawshank

If I was making that kind of profit, I'd sell gas for $.25 cents a gallon, just to piss off the other companies.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if we are cutting things out of the budget everything should be on the table. we need to cut defense obviously, but we also need to stop giving money to big business who clearly can not only survive but thrive without that money. if we stopped all subsidies to exxon they would still turm mega profits. even if you raise taxes on them they will reap mega profits. this business environment is clearly working too well for them. when is the last time exxon actually LOST money in a quarter?

And then they would move all unnecessary jobs out of the US and minimize the taxes they do pay. They are a muli national company that doesn't need the US. And, you're right. Still make oodles of money. Good job, David Dinkins!

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if we are cutting things out of the budget everything should be on the table. we need to cut defense obviously, but we also need to stop giving money to big business who clearly can not only survive but thrive without that money. if we stopped all subsidies to exxon they would still turm mega profits. even if you raise taxes on them they will reap mega profits. this business environment is clearly working too well for them. when is the last time exxon actually LOST money in a quarter?

And then they would move all unnecessary jobs out of the US and minimize the taxes they do pay. They are a muli national company that doesn't need the US. And, you're right. Still make oodles of money. Good job, David Dinkins!

they do need the us. if they didn't need the us they would not be headquartered here. remember when bush blamed the people themselves for having an addiction to oil? exxon needs us.

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

got any facts to back up your theory...?

you present as if you "dug deeper" but only seem be sharing the "don't tax the rich because they create jobs"...

This is not theory. It is fact. I know what the truth is. I don't need to get it from newspaper articles. Do a little researsh yourself and challenge the simpleton ideas of the liberals. Just like Odumba not realizing there are reasons certain things are kept a secret (where's the transparency?!), or to keep Guantanomo open and try terrorists there instead of civil trials, etc. It all looks good from the surface. But, when you actually educate yourself, you'll learn a lot more.

Think of the rent on the buildings they lease or the money spent on buildings they own. So, on and so forth. It's really not that hard to think of things where they actually HELP the economy by providing a little incentive (little being an EXTREMELY relative term).

I asked for something to back up your "facts" and I get this...I have to admit, I'm having a hard time following your gibberish...

EdsonNascimento

inmytree wrote:

I asked for something to back up your "facts" and I get this...I have to admit, I'm having a hard time following your gibberish...

I will go slowly for you. We don't just "give" tax subisidies. We trade them in exchange for promises from the company that gets them. Giuliani "Disneyfied" Times Square this way, and it is now a clean, family friendly place instead of what came before it. AND a very good tax stream for NYC (even with the subsidies).

Now, as I said from the start, I don't know all the details of the Exxon deal, but I have to imagine employment was part of it. As in, we give you this, you maintain at least X number jobs in the US (with obviously far greater detail than that).

Now, Ms. A has a job in Arkansas with Exxon because of that. She pays taxes on her income (or maybe not if she's not making enough, but at least she's not on welfare SPENDING your tax dollars). Most days, she needs to eat lunch. So, she occassionally frequents the deli next door. She buys her sandwich and the deli owner thanks her very much.

The deli owner is thrilled because without that Exxon office next door, he'd be out of business. So, he can keep his deli open. Unfortunately, he has to pay taxes on his income. So, that sandwich Ms. A bought not only has sales tax that goes to the State, it is also income that gets taxed by the Feds.

So, now we have 2 buildings occupied either as a purchase or rent. Exxon may get another tax rebate on that in order to get that location. But, their build, rent or purchase $'s go to someone who then keeps a business that is taxed that would not have the building filled if not for Exxon. And, of course, the deli owner keeps his building occupied.

Now, if you want to do the research and argue that all that doesn't add up to the $4 billion in tax relief - then fine. That's a legitemate argument and we should be vigilant that we are "getting our monies worth." But, be assured, that tax subsidy is buying something and that value should not be ignored just because a company makes a profit.

WaveCameCrashin

know1 wrote:

Raising taxes on the oil companies will just raise oil costs for the consumers.

Plus, what is the government going to do with all of this additional money? It should be given back to consumers as tax breaks, but it won't be. Our wicked, corrupt government will just use it for its own end.

These are the questions that we should be asking, yet all we get are people wanting to punish the oil companies for high gas prices and profits. That is just childish and short-sighted.

Right you are sir and not to mention these companies only make like 6 to 8 cents per gallon of gas sold. Obama isn't doing a damn thing about this and he's not going to. Also it's supply and demand

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I asked for something to back up your "facts" and I get this...I have to admit, I'm having a hard time following your gibberish...

I will go slowly for you. We don't just "give" tax subisidies. We trade them in exchange for promises from the company that gets them. Giuliani "Disneyfied" Times Square this way, and it is now a clean, family friendly place instead of what came before it. AND a very good tax stream for NYC (even with the subsidies).

Now, as I said from the start, I don't know all the details of the Exxon deal, but I have to imagine employment was part of it. As in, we give you this, you maintain at least X number jobs in the US (with obviously far greater detail than that).

Now, Ms. A has a job in Arkansas with Exxon because of that. She pays taxes on her income (or maybe not if she's not making enough, but at least she's not on welfare SPENDING your tax dollars). Most days, she needs to eat lunch. So, she occassionally frequents the deli next door. She buys her sandwich and the deli owner thanks her very much.

The deli owner is thrilled because without that Exxon office next door, he'd be out of business. So, he can keep his deli open. Unfortunately, he has to pay taxes on his income. So, that sandwich Ms. A bought not only has sales tax that goes to the State, it is also income that gets taxed by the Feds.

So, now we have 2 buildings occupied either as a purchase or rent. Exxon may get another tax rebate on that in order to get that location. But, their build, rent or purchase $'s go to someone who then keeps a business that is taxed that would not have the building filled if not for Exxon. And, of course, the deli owner keeps his building occupied.

Now, if you want to do the research and argue that all that doesn't add up to the $4 billion in tax relief - then fine. That's a legitemate argument and we should be vigilant that we are "getting our monies worth." But, be assured, that tax subsidy is buying something and that value should not be ignored just because a company makes a profit.

more theory vs. facts...

I do find it funny that when you're called out, you want me to the research... :roll:

EdsonNascimento

inmytree wrote:

more theory vs. facts...

I do find it funny that when you're called out, you want me to the research... :roll:

But, I have no (big) issue with the tax subsidies. You do. You're the one that needs to educate yourself to make a more credible argument. Plus, you'll learn more if you do the work yourself.

I've given you the road map as to why it's not necessarily bad. It's up to you to follow it (or not - your choice). I'm just trying to educate you on the way the world works. If you don't want to dig deeper, that is certainly your perogative.

(And BTW, not that I want to get into the I know you are but what am I - what facts have you shared other than the tax subsidy and the profit number. I could share the same and still make my argument. So, there, nah, nah, nah. I've provided the same facts as you! )

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

inmytree wrote:

more theory vs. facts...

I do find it funny that when you're called out, you want me to the research... :roll:

But, I have no (big) issue with the tax subsidies. You do. You're the one that needs to educate yourself to make a more credible argument. Plus, you'll learn more if you do the work yourself.

I've given you the road map as to why it's not necessarily bad. It's up to you to follow it (or not - your choice). I'm just trying to educate you on the way the world works. If you don't want to dig deeper, that is certainly your perogative.

(And BTW, not that I want to get into the I know you are but what am I - what facts have you shared other than the tax subsidy and the profit number. I could share the same and still make my argument. So, there, nah, nah, nah. I've provided the same facts as you! )

more talking in circles...

anyhooo...you assume I have a (big) issue with subsides...

Here's my issue...you spouted off a few talking points, tossed in some fake story about a deli, and then try to put the onus on me to do some 'research'...I simply asked you to back up your theory/story/bs...and it seems you can't... :yawn:

WaveCameCrashin

********Congressman Martin Frost(D) Obama not telling the truth******



http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=05F_O8RsYgo


It must really suck for you leftist when facts get in the way...