Does anyone - other than Republican politicians - favor continued Big Oil tax breaks?
Today once again, House Democrats proposed a vote to end subsidies to big oil companies like Exxon and Shell. House Republicans voted it down in lock step.
"Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who sponsored the oil tax proposal, wondered why taxpayers should be asked "to fork over" billions of dollars in subsidies to some of the most profitable companies on the planet — particularly as funding for law enforcement, medical research and education is on the chopping block."
This puzzles me. Republicans claim we need to cut the deficit. They're willing to slash funding to schools, scientific research, medical research, etc. Yet they're not willing to touch tax breaks on the rich or on big oil companies.
We constantly hear that technologies need to compete in the free market without subsidies. Yet Republicans are apparently unwilling to eliminate subsidies to Big Oil.
Does anybody support the Republican decision to continue pumping billions of dollars of subsidies toward the massively profitable oil giants?
- 9 years ago
The link below will give you some idea why the republicans are so enamored to the oil industry Dana
We must not forget the potential dangers of falling for false dichotomies
When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box and this does not release us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.
Hegelian conflicts steer every political arena on the planet as dialogues and consensus-building are primary tools of the dialectic.
The Hegelian dialectical formula: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).
For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave.
In the end whoever you vote for really does not matter as politicians are nothing more than agents of corporations wherever they happen to fall in the political spectrum.
(Quote) 'Although the amount of political money attributable to the oil and gas industry fluctuates, the recipients of the funds have remained relatively consistent over the years, with Republicans accumulating a majority of the industry’s campaign contributions' (unquote)
- FrancineLv 44 years ago
Once again we see the republicans say they want what is best for working class Americans, only to show their real colors of the Working Rich Class. But Democrats aren't any better saying lets give free health care away tto the low income class which draws food stamps has HUD pay for their housing, pays their electric gas water and sewer at your new increased tax expense from the real middle to low working class which has to pay for everything themselves with higher taxation.. Both are feeding America a bunch of GARBAGE Really Isn't it time for both of these parties to find out the power of the people? Lets make America once again the America of the People for the people and by the people Vote 3rd party
- MilesLv 49 years ago
I really liked linlyons answer just wanted to ad a point.
How would "Solow's residual"effect the question?
A considerable portion of the twentieth century's economic thought was devoted to the often ideological debate between those who thought capital the most important input to a thriving economy and those who made the case for labour. Often overlooked was the role of energy in economic growth.In 1956 economist Robert Solow argued that,because about 70% of the cost of producing something went to pay for labour and about 30% went to pat for capital,a 1% rise in the contribution of labour(say longer hours) would result in 0.7% extra economic growth, while a 1% rise in the contribution of capital (say, investment in new factories) would produce 0.3% growth.But Solow recognized that something was missing.
It seems that the worlds economies are still blind to the effects cheap oil and oil that is not paying for the costs that it incurs.Always appreciate your questions and answers as well as the those on this site that have tried to inform themselves.
- Anonymous9 years ago
Alvin Z; Hi JIm
"We can either give them subsidies or pay at the pump. We can raise taxes on corporations then pay for it when we buy their product. Taxes are some of the expenses in producing a product along with labor overhead etc. So it makes little sence to tax corporations any more, you and I pay any and all taxes."
Even if that were true, paying more a the pump will encourage conservation and use of alternate energy.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 9 years ago
They sound like the Liberal party (conservatives) here in Australia - on the side of things like big businesses.
EDIT: I'll just add that I don't support the subsidies and that a real problem with removing them is that they would likely just pass their loss of it onto the consumer (probably with some BS story too). It's kind of like exploiting a loophole and I think things like this is a serious issue.
- Hey DookLv 79 years ago
Two of the most solid answers (though some others are also good; my own view matches most closely that of VampireMuffin) are those given at the bottom, but not showing automatically, due to Richie/GeorgeOrwell & his cabal of cheating aliases having given them the near-instant 5-8 thumbs downs. I intend to put in a suggestion (where do I do this?) to Yahoo Answers to discontinue this absurd feature. ESPECIALLY in a category so rife with deliberate disinformation, YA should ALWAYS show ALL answers. I would welcome others of you suggesting likewise.
- BGSLv 49 years ago
Big Oil CEOs.
- hypnobunnyLv 59 years ago
I don't favor subsidies for any big business.
- 9 years ago
The "Trickle down" we are supposed to live on is not oil. It is more like urine!
- Anonymous9 years ago
Why? Because they are lying hypocrites. Next question.