Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 12:03:31 GMT -5
I wonder how the cost of 1.2 million unemployed measures up to what some see as evil subsidies. And-- how was it "okay" to bail out the auto industry and "save or create" all those jobs,but wildcatters are whiners?? I've known a few, and I wouldn't call them that to their faces.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on May 13, 2011 12:17:36 GMT -5
I wonder how the cost of 1.2 million unemployed measures up to what some see as evil subsidies. And-- how was it "okay" to bail out the auto industry and "save or create" all those jobs,but wildcatters are whiners?? I've known a few, and I wouldn't call them that to their faces. I, personally, didn't agree with any form of bailout. If a company goes under, it goes under, doesn't matter that "they are too big to fail." But, honestly, you can't on one hand say that government need not meddle in business and then expect that same goverment to give tax breaks to a business that they shouldn't be meddling in. Pretty cut and dried to me. You can't have it both ways. No meddling/no tax breaks -- sink or swim.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 12:25:02 GMT -5
NOT addressed to pepper-- so now that lots of things got "bailed out" it is suddenly not okay to try to save jobs for oil field workers? How does that work?
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on May 13, 2011 12:37:35 GMT -5
Not sure. Since they are spending so much money on research and development and alternative fuels/energy maybe they should cross-train those workers. I really don't have the answer. But, just like anyone that loses a job in whatever field, the first pat answer that I have heard, particularly on these types of boards, is to get training in another field. Can't wait for the government to fix your situation. Going off topic, but because of flooding there are certain areas in Virginia that do not qualify for government assistance, they are now prevailing upon companies, churches and charities to help. I guess my point is, one can't depend on a government that is so woefully inefficient and bloated with bureaucracy to help.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on May 13, 2011 12:45:01 GMT -5
I truly didn't know what a tax subsidy is but from my brief bit of research, they are really tax breaks. And is it because they are tax breaks that is another way to say that the government is subsidizing a business, in this case oil companies, because of the tax breaks given to it, hence the term "oil subsidy?" My next question is, are the oil companies getting more and above say different types of manufacturing concerns because of the product? Or, do they all get the same tax breaks or "subsidy?" Here is what I was able to find after a quick google search. I figured as much, but trust a politician to try and play with words just to get people fired up about something.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on May 13, 2011 12:47:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 13:24:06 GMT -5
Thx for the input, Driftr.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on May 13, 2011 13:32:44 GMT -5
I truly didn't know what a tax subsidy is but from my brief bit of research, they are really tax breaks. And is it because they are tax breaks that is another way to say that the government is subsidizing a business, in this case oil companies, because of the tax breaks given to it, hence the term "oil subsidy?" My next question is, are the oil companies getting more and above say different types of manufacturing concerns because of the product? Or, do they all get the same tax breaks or "subsidy?" Here is what I was able to find after a quick google search. I figured as much, but trust a politician to try and play with words just to get people fired up about something. So do the U.S. companies that do not manufacture in the United States get to benefit from the "Domestic Manufacturing Tax Deduction," if they are manufacturing in other countries? Or do they get the benefit because the headquarters are based in the U.S., or is the tax deduction calculated based on the amount of factories within the U.S. versus the ones outside the U.S.?
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on May 13, 2011 13:44:15 GMT -5
I think most people don't know what these subsidies are, they should explain them, they are items that reduce the oil companies tax bill, they still pay taxes (A LOT in the case of oil companies), but the subsidies help reduce there tax burden, think of it as you mortgage or medical deduction, those are subsidies that individuals get to reduce there tax burden. So the real answer is to simplify the tax code dramatically to reduce all of the confusion and cost associated with preparing and paying taxes.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on May 13, 2011 13:47:36 GMT -5
bottom line..........
our federal gov't needs to get small........REAL small.......
the debt ceiling and the 2012 elections, might be the best opportunity for the american voter to get this done. the problem we, the american taxpayer, have, is that the american non-taxpayer votes as well, and they will always vote for the people that will continue giving them what they want, without working for it.
we are already at 47% of americans not paying any taxes, so we (american taxpayers) can't wait much longer, or the numbers just will not let us change things.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on May 13, 2011 13:56:17 GMT -5
I really don't understand why our Federal Government won't get behind drastically expanding viable domestic energy production.
This is just full of massive win all around, increase in domestic energy production will create a butastical amount of jobs directly and indirectly, removing many people from the welfare rolls to the tax rolls. Energy is highly taxed, so this would directly increase revenue, plus the revenue for selling any leases and what not. It would allow a much larger percentage of money to remain in the US instead of being sent to mostly foreign governments that don't particularly like us.
If they allowed a tax amnesty for repatriated money at the same time this would allow capital to flood in to promote this growth, or better yet, enact the fairtax, which would make the US the number 1 business tax haven in the world, giving a huge incentive to do business here, if regulations where streamlined it might actually be enough to overcome our higher wage costs here.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on May 13, 2011 14:20:51 GMT -5
I think most people don't know what these subsidies are, they should explain them, they are items that reduce the oil companies tax bill, they still pay taxes (A LOT in the case of oil companies), but the subsidies help reduce there tax burden, think of it as you mortgage or medical deduction, those are subsidies that individuals get to reduce there tax burden. So the real answer is to simplify the tax code dramatically to reduce all of the confusion and cost associated with preparing and paying taxes. I think the first thing that should be done is to quit calling them subsidies. That says to me that the government is giving them money to do business, getting nothing in return while they are raking in record profits (which would make anyone upset -- same as the welfare recipients most harp about), as opposed to tax breaks for the type of business - manufacturing. And, one has to look at it in this way, they pay a lot of taxes because they make a lot of money, just like anyone else would. Also noted are the variables that play into what a person actually pays at the pump. First it was Libya, now it is the Mississippi flooding, in addition to allegations of speculation. In the scheme of things the US pays significantly less than those in Europe, but Europe has a more convenient transportation system. So one aspect of reducing the need for oil/gas could be improving transportation systems to lessen the need to drive, although I am not naive enough to think that this alone would solve this problem.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 13, 2011 14:25:08 GMT -5
I really don't understand why our Federal Government won't get behind drastically expanding viable domestic energy production. This is just full of massive win all around, increase in domestic energy production will create a butastical amount of jobs directly and indirectly, removing many people from the welfare rolls to the tax rolls. Energy is highly taxed, so this would directly increase revenue, plus the revenue for selling any leases and what not. It would allow a much larger percentage of money to remain in the US instead of being sent to mostly foreign governments that don't particularly like us. If they allowed a tax amnesty for repatriated money at the same time this would allow capital to flood in to promote this growth, or better yet, enact the fairtax, which would make the US the number 1 business tax haven in the world, giving a huge incentive to do business here, if regulations where streamlined it might actually be enough to overcome our higher wage costs here. Because-- and we're all going to have to face this honestly-- we have enemies within our government. We have radical revolutionaries in the bureaucracy, and our own President very much dislikes our country, he dislikes fossil fuels, and he intends to fundamentally change America.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on May 13, 2011 14:36:40 GMT -5
we need to change.........and i was hoping that obama would bring about change........but nope.....more of the same, and even more of the same.
more war, less gov't openness, more gov't involvement in our daily lives, more picking winners and losers in business, more money printing, more 'good old boy' politics.
i am very disappointed in obama and hope seriously that he does not get re-elected.
any person, that runs and wins on a certain platform, that does not continue on that platform, while in office, should never have the chance to be re-elected to that public office again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 14:39:10 GMT -5
maui
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 14:40:43 GMT -5
I think most people don't know what these subsidies are, they should explain them, they are items that reduce the oil companies tax bill, they still pay taxes (A LOT in the case of oil companies), but the subsidies help reduce there tax burden, think of it as you mortgage or medical deduction, those are subsidies that individuals get to reduce there tax burden. So the real answer is to simplify the tax code dramatically to reduce all of the confusion and cost associated with preparing and paying taxes. I think the first thing that should be done is to quit calling them subsidies. That says to me that the government is giving them money to do business, getting nothing in return while they are raking in record profits (which would make anyone upset -- same as the welfare recipients most harp about), as opposed to tax breaks for the type of business - manufacturing. And, one has to look at it in this way, they pay a lot of taxes because they make a lot of money, just like anyone else would. Also noted are the variables that play into what a person actually pays at the pump. First it was Libya, now it is the Mississippi flooding, in addition to allegations of speculation. In the scheme of things the US pays significantly less than those in Europe, but Europe has a more convenient transportation system. So one aspect of reducing the need for oil/gas could be improving transportation systems to lessen the need to drive, although I am not naive enough to think that this alone would solve this problem. The only problem with public transportation systems is they require a very high population density to work. Then of course in these areas commuting distances are short making it more economically feasible to just drive. I can't recall one public system that makes it on its own without tax money support. As an aside, the city of Springfield Missouri has city owned utilities company ( Gas, Water, and Electric.). On your "CU" bill is a charge for subsidizing the cities public bus system. One place I'll never live.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2011 14:48:22 GMT -5
The taxes on my utility bills are now several lines and quite a few $$$$$ long. Did not used to be that way. I hear this is just the beginning. People in the group between welfare and comfortable, like me, are getting slaughtered by all these various taxes.
|
|
|
Post by maui1 on May 13, 2011 15:00:25 GMT -5
if a certain project will work, it will be done by private business. creating profit, is the most empowering incentive there is in this world, next to ....you know what........, but
the only involvement gov't should have is protecting the private rights of others that might be adversely effected by said project. this gov't involvement should only happen when those that impacted can prove to the majority, in a public hearing, of those in that community, that they will be negatively impacted.
if fraud or coercion is detected in the above process of negative impact review, it should be addressed by the most serious of action to prevent fraud or coercion from ever happening again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 6:49:44 GMT -5
Obama is flip-flopping on all of this. Guess the public reaction did not bode well for 2012. Well, for once I am glad we have a weak POTUS. www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/14/obama-announces-steps-ramp-oil-production/Obama Announces Steps to Ramp Up U.S. Oil Production Published May 14, 2011 | Associated Press Of course he will turn his flip on this in to photo-op Obama is great moment, but who cares? Thx to the pubs for putting the pressure on. Definite win for the House Republicans and unemployed oil workers..
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 14, 2011 7:47:10 GMT -5
Yes..what is America comming to?In the good old days we would have just killed all those local Indians who were against it and taken their town for the oil company long before they could hire big shot lawyers to overturn the permits.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on May 14, 2011 7:59:27 GMT -5
IMO, tax breaks like this------"Intangible Drilling Costs – Companies which engage purely in energy exploration and discovery can recover their costs related to exploration at tax time at a rate of 100%. This lessens the burden on energy providers for the number of “dry holes” which may be found in the process. Integrated companies (i.e. “big oil”) can recover these exploration costs at 70%" -- is about as close to a subsidy as you can get without being a subsidy. Maybe it is needed in order for oil companies to survive,who knows unless it is brought up and disected. In a time where republicans are saying they will not agree to a debt ceiling deal until large cuts are made to medicare and medicaid,is it really unAmerican to question the necessity for these things,as the Conocco exec called it? One day everything is supposed to be on the table,the next it is evil and unAmerican to cut the programs we support..
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 14, 2011 12:46:28 GMT -5
Next up- subsidies for fishermen in case they don't catch any fish.
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on May 14, 2011 18:33:04 GMT -5
Aren't they already given to farmers not to farm or only to raise certain crops? The bottom line is that every "subsidy," foreign aid, etc., needs to be dissected to determine its need. Can't say that government is bloated and then refuse to take into account of every aspect of government money spent in order to make cuts. But from what I see, the only things we hear about are those that result in further polarizing the two parties, which I think is a bunch of crock because in the end, nothing actually gets done because the politicians that our tax dollars pay to be in office rather argue in rhetoric than actually do anything. Voters in both parties should be upset about this.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on May 14, 2011 18:37:18 GMT -5
Obama is just worried that the more domestic oil the US has, the less we will buy from his Muslim brothers.
Can't wait for November 2012 to vote him out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 18:42:07 GMT -5
Agree + karma, ameiko. I'm glad Obama SEEMS to be flipping on this-- we'll see. Come on, 1.2 million jobs!! Well done, House Republicans. They KNOW we will vote them out if they do not do the job we elected them to do.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 20:29:16 GMT -5
www.theblaze.com/stories/urinet-going-to-believe-this-researchers-develop-pee-powered-car/TECHNOLOGY URINE’T GOING TO BELIEVE THIS: RESEARCHERS DEVELOP PEE-POWERED CAR Posted on May 14, 2011 at 7:41am Researchers at Ohio University are studying a new energy source you can produce yourself. They’re studying the power of pee. It’s something everyone does, every day. Even though urine is nearly 99 percent water, there is a lot of hydrogen in the remaining one percent from an organic compound called urea. To break it down, if you could collect the urine from all 24,000 students at Ohio University, you could power 60 buildings every day. (Pee powered car video in link) Well, sounds environmentally friendly......
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 20:33:38 GMT -5
krickett. they would have to figure out a way to tax your pee, too messy. Gov would never go for it!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 20:36:03 GMT -5
Pee tax.....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 20:38:26 GMT -5
Pee tax..... much to self sufficient, reap what you sow. Those days...over.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 3:45:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2011 20:52:09 GMT -5
There would be a national dehydration epidemic!!!
|
|