Thread: About time this happened

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS
Democrats Look to Roll Back Tax Breaks for Oil Cos.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

• E-MAIL STORY
• PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

WASHINGTON — House Democrats in the first weeks of the new Congress plan to establish a dedicated fund to promote renewable energy and conservation, using money from oil companies.
That's only one legislative hit the oil industry is expected to take next year as a Congress run by Democrats is likely to show little sympathy to the cash-rich, high-profile business.
Whether the issue is rolling tax breaks — some approved by Congress only 18 months ago — pushing for more use of ethanol and other biofuels instead of gasoline, or investigations into shortfalls in royalty payments to the government, oil industry lobbyists will spend most of their time playing defense.
Details of a renewable fuels fund have yet to be worked out. Nonetheless, it's one of the initiatives the House will take up during its first 100 hours in session in January, according to aides to Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi. At least some of the money — revenue gained by rolling back some tax breaks — will go to a program to support research into making ethanol from sources other than corn.

Tax breaks 18 months ago?!? When they were posting record high profits with high gas prices,they were getting tax breaks?!? Its about time this happened.

Again, another good sign. It will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I am so happy that the Democrats are making good with their majority advantage in Congress. Im sure that some Republicans are also supporting this too.

Why is it a good sign that Congress will be stealing from one group of people to fund the activities of another?

Is there some mystery in finding new, non-fossil fuel sources? Is there any mystery in the fact that their inadequacies are mostly due to the cheap price of fossil fuels at this time, and the fact that the alternative sources simply won't become cost competitive in the foreseeable future, until oil prices rise?

The only apparent purpose this legislation is to provide the kool-aid drinkers with a new flavor to try out.

Fact of the matter is that no businesses should be taxed at any point in their business cycle. Businesses don't have "incomes", what they have are stockholders who earn money when their businesses are profitable. Business taxes do nothing except tax the business owner twice, once when the business shows a profit, and again when the profits are distributed to the stockholders.

That's bullshit. Would that idiot making minimum wage at 7-11 want to have his wage pool taxed before the company pays it out to him, and taxed again when he gets it? Hmm...they are idiots...most of them think they're getting something special when they get a big refund, because they're too dumb to realize that it's an interest free loan to the government....yeah, they could be stupid enough to think that double taxation is fair. They must be. They vote for Democrats.

"Ethanol"? ? ? ? ? ? You mean, taking money from the evil big business tycoons at Exxon and giving it to the evil big business tycoons at Archer-Daniels-Midland....and then burning food to fuel cars when those poor poor poor poor ...POOR kids in socialist Zimbabwe are starving because the United States is to stingy to give it's "fair share" in aid to that luckless country which has so recently excaped from the clutches of bourgeois capitalism and full grocery store shelves.

"will go to a program to support research into making ethanol from sources other than corn" Translation: The US sugar lobby wants a piece of the action.

The increased % requirements for ethanol for all stations have already been put in place and they have 10 years to transfer it over.

What people also do not realize is how much money it will cost to transfer everything over when we do make a change. Many stations will not make it and many people will not be able to afford the change.

I agree with FFA. This sounds like a good idea when you look at it in the surface, but, really, it's a load of crap designed to be just what it is, a way to make them look like they are helping the little people when really, they aren't doing much at all.
It's similiar to their 9/11 recommendations they put in the first day. They allocated 50M for something that doesn't exist yet because the technology doesn't exist yet. Yay. I feel so much better now.

So then you are all in agreeance that subsidies and tax breaks for any company are a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Luigi

So then you are all in agreeance that subsidies and tax breaks for any company are a bad thing?

It offends my flint-hearted-capitalist-don't-rob-me-to-pay-your-buddy soul. If someone thinks something is economically feasible, they need to convince enough private citizens to invest in the program.

Private citizens should fund any energy switchover, just like private citizens built the present infrastructure. Those same private citizens should be allowed to maximize their profits if their risks pay off.

Private citizens should finance stem-cell research. The clearest indication that such research ISN'T as promising as the politicians claim is the clear absense of private venture capital in the field.

Allowing people to risk their own money is the moral option, as well as assuring that resources are used most efficiently.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

It offends my flint-hearted-capitalist-don't-rob-me-to-pay-your-buddy soul. If someone thinks something is economically feasible, they need to convince enough private citizens to invest in the program.

Private citizens should fund any energy switchover, just like private citizens built the present infrastructure. Those same private citizens should be allowed to maximize their profits if their risks pay off.

Private citizens should finance stem-cell research. The clearest indication that such research ISN'T as promising as the politicians claim is the clear absense of private venture capital in the field.

Allowing people to risk their own money is the moral option, as well as assuring that resources are used most efficiently.

Ill agree to a large extent on that with you. But if my taxes are going to an oil company that just posted record highs in profits, and it gets switched over to R+D in renewables, Im MUCH less pissed. This is something that needs to be done regardless of your political outlook.

You have some point, but dont assume the magical hand of the market is without fault. Sometimes people need to take whats best for them. Like police stations. We could make it by donation only, but if they didnt get enough money every year, we would have armed militias controlled by the rich, like in other countries with no security forces.

Sometimes people need to be told what is best for them. Its called an intervention. If we dont start getting off the oil-crack now, its only gonna be harder the longer we wait.

I dont hear you complain about the 10 billion in subsidies that coal companies got this year. God forbid we put any money in solar power, though.

It makes no difference if money stolen from you goes to feed someone with current needs or someone with future needs. The key thing to pay attention to is that you've been robbed.

Ah, the old police station switcheroo. When will you people figure out that policing is a legitimate function of government, and hence not properly eligible for privatization?

Sometimes people that don't figure out what's best for them die. It's called "a steep learning curve". Since the one's claiming the need to be the leaders are also people, they're equally unreliable. If we don't get off oil now....we've got a trillion barrel reserve in Colorado/Utah to drain first. That'll take the better part of a century to work through.

You don't hear me complain about a lot of things. Given that I've already said that subsidies are morally wrong, why are you presuming that becuase I haven't discussed coal I must be somehow in support of that subsidy? You need to work on your reasoning skills.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

It makes no difference if money stolen from you goes to feed someone with current needs or someone with future needs. The key thing to pay attention to is that you've been robbed.

Ah, the old police station switcheroo. When will you people figure out that policing is a legitimate function of government, and hence not properly eligible for privatization?

Sometimes people that don't figure out what's best for them die. It's called "a steep learning curve". Since the one's claiming the need to be the leaders are also people, they're equally unreliable. If we don't get off oil now....we've got a trillion barrel reserve in Colorado/Utah to drain first. That'll take the better part of a century to work through.

You don't hear me complain about a lot of things. Given that I've already said that subsidies are morally wrong, why are you presuming that becuase I haven't discussed coal I must be somehow in support of that subsidy? You need to work on your reasoning skills.

Its just that you too often confuse "Your own personal outlook on life" with "Reality". You have zero tolerance for any view that is 1% off from yours. And youll go on for paragraphs about how stupid everyone else is for not agreeing with you 100%.

My motivation wanes when dealing with ego-centric absolutists, so I find myself less likely to actually argue with you. Any information I have ever presented to you has summarily been dismissed as garbage and conspiracy for going against your views. Everything comes down to your reality. I can make an argument against yours, pointing out my OPINION of your shortcomings, providing fact, so on, and so on. But it doesnt matter. Its useless. You will die before showing any empathy or trying to view an argument from different angles.

You are not here to debate. Debating would imply that there is something to be gained by talking to people about your views. You are here to show people how dumb they are and make yourself feel better.

Im sorry, I dont mean that personally. Its just incredibly redundant to talk to you.

Originally Posted by Luigi

Its just that you too often confuse "Your own personal outlook on life" with "Reality".

No. There's no conflict there.

Originally Posted by Luigi

You have zero tolerance for any view that is 1% off from yours. And youll go on for paragraphs about how stupid everyone else is for not agreeing with you 100%.

And...?

I'm supposed to support people who think that it's okay for my money to be stolen if it's going to used for a cause they think is "good"? I'm not only perfectly capable of determining what 'good' causes are, I'm also able to send my money in those directions without any assistance from government stooges that never learned how to do anything useful in life.

It's a serious problem in modern society that those people who think they need the government to help them spend their money also think I need the same assistance. I don't. If they need that kind of help, they'd be better off spending their money on psychiatric care for themselves.

Originally Posted by Luigi

You will die before showing any empathy or trying to view an argument from different angles.

Then again, chances are most excellent that I've already viewed the argument from the assorted forms of immoral angles typically presented and rejected them because...they're based on essential immorality.

Originally Posted by Luigi

You are not here to debate. Debating would imply that there is something to be gained by talking to people about your views. You are here to show people how dumb they are and make yourself feel better.

I feel fine after talking with you.