Republicans refuse to repeal taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil

[Riot]

The Republican Party is all about saving taxpayer dollars and stopping "free handouts" ... except when it's their corporate masters.

Another day in the Senate, another filibuster by Republicans on behalf of corporate America. The Senate voted on advancing a bill to repeal subsidies and tax breaks to Big Oil, and while the majority supported the bill, the filibuster held in the final 51-47 vote (Republicans Mark Kirk and Orrin Hatch were not present to vote).

Maine Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins voted with Democrats, while Democrats Mark Begich (AK), Mary Landrieu (LA), Jim Webb (VA) and Ben Nelson (NE) switched sides. Landrieu and Begich, being from oil producing states, were needlessly voting for self protection, since there wasn't a chance the filibuster could be broken. Webb and Nelson, both retiring, are completely inexcusable.

But this is the status quo that the Republicans voted to protect:

Yeah they had help from the opposite aisle. Get your party to fall in line, Arriana Cuntington.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Republican Party is all about saving taxpayer dollars and stopping "free handouts" ... except when it's their corporate masters.

You don't still believe that these companies pay taxes as opposed to collecting them, do you?
Take away the $4BB and it goes right to the purchaser.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

You don't still believe that these companies pay taxes as opposed to collecting them, do you?
Take away the $4BB and it goes right to the purchaser.

No, it's a fact they don't pay taxes, according to their published tax records.

What does that have to do with Senate Republicans refusing to eliminate taxpayer subsidies?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, it's a fact they don't pay taxes, according to their published tax records.

What does that have to do with Senate Republicans refusing to eliminate taxpayer subsidies?

Should GE pay taxes?
Don't forget the inexcusable actions of Senate Dems. What else is in this bill?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Should GE pay taxes?
Don't forget the inexcusable actions of the few typical blue dog Senate Dems that have always voted Republican. What else is in this bill?

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?

'Democrats had proposed redirecting some of the $20 billion from the subsidies to renew a series of tax credits aimed at manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars. Those credits ran out at the end of last year, and the renewable-energy industry has been clamoring for Congress to restore them. The remaining $9 billion would have gone toward the budget deficit.'

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.

[Antitrust32]

the answer is not More Taxes

the answer is Less Spending




that's the common difference between the government and reality.

[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.

[Danzig]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...842454412.html


for one, it wasn't a strict party vote, with some of each party crossing the line.
for another, it was doomed from the start and was strictly a political ploy to deflect attention from one crappy group to another.
and for a third, the subsidies would have gone to another corporate entity(ies) as you can see towards the end of the article. it certainly wouldn't benefit those of us paying all the money that the feds then redistribute to whichever hungry bird opens its mouth the widest:

'Democrats had proposed redirecting some of the $20 billion from the subsidies to renew a series of tax credits aimed at manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars. Those credits ran out at the end of last year, and the renewable-energy industry has been clamoring for Congress to restore them. The remaining $9 billion would have gone toward the budget deficit.'