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?

[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.'

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the answer is not More Taxes

the answer is Less Spending

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

You mean like you will spend less if your paycheck is cut?

Or you mean like you spending what you need to on rent, car, food, etc. Then having your paycheck cut. Then being lectured that the problem with you now being unable to pay your rent is because you spend too much. And the cure to your being unable to pay for your rent, car, food, etc. is for you to spend even less.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the answer is not More Taxes

the answer is Less Spending




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

the problem is right now that they won't cut what would make a difference. the stuff that could be cut, won't make a difference. like i've said before, the vast majority of the federal budget goes to entitlements and defense. and for the last few years, the govt has lowered the payroll tax portion that goes towards social security-which is doing their budget no favors. they call it a 'payroll tax', but it's social security witholding.
so, they dig in and won't touch what needs touching, and here we are. cuts alone, according to what i've read from many sources, is not enough. there has to be a combo of tax increases in some form and spending changes. or the issue only continues to grow and get worse until we're greece 2.0.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

You mean like you will spend less if your paycheck is cut?

Or you mean like you spending what you need to on rent, car, food, etc. Then having your paycheck cut. Then being lectured that the problem with you now being unable to pay your rent is because you spend too much. And the cure to your being unable to pay for your rent, car, food, etc. is for you to spend even less.

it would be one thing if your analogy was accurate.

they pay the rent, car, food.. and then go on stripper / hooker / crack / casino binges.

I'm saying cut the stripper / hooker / crack and casino money.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

it would be one thing if your analogy was accurate.

It is an accurate analogy, because that's exactly what Bush did to us. We had our bills we were paying, we were on the way to virtually zero deficit, we were cutting the amount we owed every year.

Then Bush cut our income. Without cutting any of our bills. Now we're broke.

[Antitrust32]

if you think Bush was bad..

you should check out this dude named Obama

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

if you think Bush was bad..

you should check out this dude named Obama

Dang. If only that weren't completely false ....

[Riot]

Here, this suits many here:

America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, releases a Super PAC ad for the GOP. They're welcome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=oMp98aM-Svg

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here, this suits many here:

America's Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, releases a Super PAC ad for the GOP. They're welcome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=oMp98aM-Svg

Where do i sign up?...

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

if you think Bush was bad..

you should check out this dude named Obama

OMG
















OMG.jpg

[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.

[dellinger63]

Stop the money flow!

No new ceiling raise until a balanced budget is passed.

Period!

[Danzig]

it's my opinion that no business should receive a subsidy ever. that's not the governments place. andrew jackson said back in his day that tariffs should be levied for one thing, income to the govt. not to help a business, not to protect it's product. i'd venture a guess that he would also be completely against subsidies. i agree with his opinion completely. cutting a subsidy only in order to give it to another, preferred type of business is no better than letting the money continue going to the first business. either way, it's a bad thing and only engenders more moves by more businesses to lobby as hard as possible to get in on the money pipeline.
of course jackson truly was a man of the people-and he remained that way throughout his two terms.