GOP blocks move to end oil subsidies

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/politi...

Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a Democratic measure championed by President Barack Obama to end tax breaks for the major oil companies.

The procedural vote of 51-47, which failed to reach the needed threshold of 60 in favor, killed the measure, which was given little chance of eventually winning approval in the Republican-controlled House. Four Democrats opposed the bill while one Republican supported it.

It's not like they're making record profits or anything. They need those tax breaks to stay in business, I'm sure!

But but but gas prices!

Oh, wait, cutting oil subsidies doesn't equal higher gas prices, unless the Congressional Research Service isn't to be believed?

Even if the changes in taxes did impact domestic, or overseas exploration and development activity, that does not necessarily imply that less oil would be available in the U.S. market. More might be imported, with little or no effect on gasoline prices.

Political unrest, expectations effects on financial markets, macroeconomic growth trends, the value of the dollar and a host other factors have contributed to fluctuations in the price of oil and gasoline. Any effect Congressional Research Service due to changes in the tax treatment of the oil industry would be hard to separate from the changes due to other factors, given the size of the relative magnitudes.

But isn't it un-American to cut tax subsidities to oil companies?

Let me see if I can go through the (false) bullet points for why they feel they needed to strike this down...

* Ending subsidies now equals raising taxes.
* Oil jobs are booming right now and putting this expense back on the oil companies could stifle job growth.
* Obama wants gas prices to go higher so Americans will embrace his green initiatives and this would raise gas prices.
* Bringing in more tax revenue is not the way to balance the budget, only cuts in spending are allowed.
* Obama likes it so it must be stopped.

Mind you, all of the above is bunk except maybe the last one. I really do think they'd block anything backed by Obama at this point.

* Obama likes it so it must be stopped.

Welcome to 2009!

First off, I think we should end oil subsidies. I think this is grasping at a dying technology out of fear of change or confidence that the wells won't run dry within the next generation, whether that's realistic or not. I also think there's a lot of money to be made in green technology and green energy.

That said, there's a lot of money to be spent on green before it becomes profitable and once the technology is mature, there's a big upfront cost to get the infrastructure in place. It's something we're going to need to do sooner or later and I can honestly understand a desire to put it off until more favorable economic conditions.

Of course, there's always a better time to invest. If we put it off now, we're going to put it off until it's critical or no longer feasible.

So, the talking points may be oversimplified or wrong but that doesn't mean there are no good reasons to do this. Or at least no reasonable reasons to do this.

Nevin73 wrote:

But isn't it un-American to cut tax subsidities to oil companies?

Cutting oil subsidies is a form of socialism.

How many months have the republicans been yelling about government spending being out of control? Now Obama tries to cut some of it and they don't pass it? Just shows how much hypocrisy there is. Look at all those tea party candidates now, I guess they have been fully absorbed.

Also interesting that 4 democrats opposed, if they had voted for it then it would have passed.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Also interesting that 4 democrats opposed, if they had voted for it then it would have passed.

No clue on this particular issue but I know on a previous issue where some Dems voted "against party" that they stated they did so because they felt the law that was being presented didn't go far enough, not that they didn't agree with what it was trying to do in principle. Could be a similar siutation here or could just be some Dems who felt the oil companies still needed this little helping hand to help them make it past this rough patch. You know, with those those record profits and all.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Also interesting that 4 democrats opposed, if they had voted for it then it would have passed.

55-43 still wouldn't have been enough.

Hooray for not being able to do anything without having a 2/3 majority.

Oh duh I missed that part.

Yeah. The republicans are basically filibustering everything at this point. Reporting on this isn't good.

Hypatian wrote:

Hooray for not being able to do anything without having a 2/3 majority.

They've turned the Congress into a bigger version of broken legislatures in New York and California. This will end well, naturally...

I think Obama should come out and accuse the Republican's of wealth redistribution. Clearly giving taxpayer dollars to profitable corporations is corporate socialism right?

I don't understand the Republican attitude about oil and green technology. We will run out of oil, even if you don't give a sh*t about the environment, we need to figure something out. Why are they so hell bent on sticking with gas burning engines? There is very little short term gain and NO long term gain.

NathanialG wrote:

I don't understand the Republican attitude about oil and green technology. We will run out of oil, even if you don't give a sh*t about the environment, we need to figure something out. Why are they so hell bent on sticking with gas burning engines? There is very little short term gain and NO long term gain.

Probably because they won't be alive to see it and neither with their rich friends so frankly my dear, they don't give a damn.

You don't even have to get to the point of environmentalism. Why are we subsidizing profitable corporations? Give a subsidy to a poor person, and it's creating a culture of dependency. Give one to an oil company, and it's a necessary part of America's energy policy and creates jobs, etc.....

we'll never run out of oil, it'll just become prohibitively expensive as scarceness, demand, and speculators affect the price.

I think I read somewhere (I know, i've gotten damn lazy with sources lately, my apologies) that peak oil per capita was actually reached in the 70s - that is, the amount of oil pumped per person on the planet began declining back then. The same guy also blamed the entire economic collapse to oil hitting 100-ish dollars a barrel ~6 months prior.

edit: source is Jeremy Rifkin from an interview on npr. Here's a link!

http://pointaview.wordpress.com/2011...

Funkenpants wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

But isn't it un-American to cut tax subsidities to oil companies?

Cutting oil subsidies is a form of socialism.

But isn't the government subsidizing any industry a form of socialism?

Seth wrote:

we'll never run out of oil, it'll just become prohibitively expensive as scarceness, demand, and speculators affect the price.

Then this!

IMAGE(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--B_ET1LXx7s/Tx7z3U_SXXI/AAAAAAAAAD8/JneZg1pOR9s/s1600/MADMAX2BLU2.jpg)

NathanialG wrote:

I don't understand the Republican attitude about oil and green technology. We will run out of oil, even if you don't give a sh*t about the environment, we need to figure something out. Why are they so hell bent on sticking with gas burning engines? There is very little short term gain and NO long term gain.

I'm almost tempted to say we should increase oil demand, simply to burn through those reserves faster to make alternatives more more attractive.

Seth,
Population is growing out of control, almost anything indexed against global population is going to be shrinking.

rosenhane wrote:

I'm almost tempted to say we should increase oil demand, simply to burn through those reserves faster to make alternatives more more attractive.

Seth,
Population is growing out of control, almost anything indexed against global population is going to be shrinking.

You might want to invent an airplane that flies on something other than fossil fuel before you burn through those reserves!

Why? Food should be produced both organically and locally. There is no need to fly things at great cost from around the world simply to satisfy the greedy urges to take from the rest of the world when we already have so much in this country.

rosenhane wrote:

Why? Food should be produced both organically and locally. There is no need to fly things at great cost from around the world simply to satisfy the greedy urges to take from the rest of the world when we already have so much in this country.

I might be greedy, but I'd like to fly back to the West Coast from time to time to see my family. It's kind of hard to do that if we don't have planes that can fly.

rosenhane wrote:

Why? Food should be produced both organically and locally. There is no need to fly things at great cost from around the world simply to satisfy the greedy urges to take from the rest of the world when we already have so much in this country.

That is untrue. Depending on where you live, buying local may actually result in the consumption of more oil. For example, up here in Ottawa, it is more ecologically friendly to buy vegetables from Florida due to what it costs to produce them year-round up here.

mudbunny wrote:

That is untrue. Depending on where you live, buying local may actually result in the consumption of more oil. For example, up here in Ottawa, it is more ecologically friendly to buy vegetables from Florida due to what it costs to produce them year-round up here.

Part of the eat local mantra is you eat what's in season locally, which means you aren't going to be eating fresh veggies in the winter.

OG_slinger wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

That is untrue. Depending on where you live, buying local may actually result in the consumption of more oil. For example, up here in Ottawa, it is more ecologically friendly to buy vegetables from Florida due to what it costs to produce them year-round up here.

Part of the eat local mantra is you eat what's in season locally, which means you aren't going to be eating fresh veggies in the winter.

My interest in high seas piracy doesnt extend to scurvy.

rosenhane wrote:

Why? Food should be produced both organically and locally. There is no need to fly things at great cost from around the world simply to satisfy the greedy urges to take from the rest of the world when we already have so much in this country.

I could be wrong but I don't think they fly a lot of fruit around. Ships, trains and tractor trailers sure, but planes?

NathanialG wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

That is untrue. Depending on where you live, buying local may actually result in the consumption of more oil. For example, up here in Ottawa, it is more ecologically friendly to buy vegetables from Florida due to what it costs to produce them year-round up here.

Part of the eat local mantra is you eat what's in season locally, which means you aren't going to be eating fresh veggies in the winter.

My interest in high seas piracy doesnt extend to scurvy.

Don't worry, canning and dehydrating are becoming fashionable among the local-foodies.

Bear wrote:
rosenhane wrote:

Why? Food should be produced both organically and locally. There is no need to fly things at great cost from around the world simply to satisfy the greedy urges to take from the rest of the world when we already have so much in this country.

I could be wrong but I don't think they fly a lot of fruit around. Ships, trains and tractor trailers sure, but planes?

hmm you could be right, as I looked it up they gas bananas before shipping them to stores to get them to begin to ripen, but given how fast many of the fruits spoil I'm not sure how they are shipped (strawberry seems to be especially fast to go bad for me)

Shouldn't this thread be titled "Four Democrats Block End to Oil Subsidies"?