House Republicans vote against amendment that would have saved billions of $s

[Nik]

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_195764.asp

House Republicans voted yesterday to protect corporate welfare for big oil companies while cutting to the bone programs average Americans depend on. While the U.S. House of Representatives was working on a stopgap funding bill to avert a government shutdown, House Democrats offered a motion that would have taken away tax subsidies from the five largest oil companies, saving tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. The motion was defeated with every Republican voting against it.

Even the CEO of Shell Oil said these subsidies weren't needed given the high price of oil. How can Republicans argue to cut vital government programs but then vote against ending subsidies to the most profitable companies in the world?

[nathanm]

Subsidies to people? That's called welfare and welfare is bad.

Subsidies to corporations? That's just good business!

Seriously, though, it's indefensible when the companies say "we don't need your money" and we keep giving it to them all while complaining about budget problems.

[Townsend]

Seriously, though, it's indefensible when the companies say "we don't need your money" and we keep giving it to them all while complaining about budget problems.

Well, their CEO says "no no no" but their lobbyists say "yes yes yes".

[TeeDub]

So not increasing taxes on a company is now giving it subsidies?

Wait, this is like my tax breaks being welfare isn't it!

All in the wording I guess.

[nathanm]

So not increasing taxes on a company is now giving it subsidies?

Wait, this is like my tax breaks being welfare isn't it!

All in the wording I guess.

Removing a deduction is not "increasing taxes on a company." We give them the deduction to incent a particular behavior or compensate them for some other cost we impose.

If you want to permanently decrease taxes for companies, you do that by lowering the tax rate, not by enacting some tax loophole.

[TeeDub]

Removing a deduction is not "increasing taxes on a company." We give them the deduction to incent a particular behavior or compensate them for some other cost we impose.

If you want to permanently decrease taxes for companies, you do that by lowering the tax rate, not by enacting some tax loophole.

I stand by my statement... 

   "Not raising taxes is now a subsidy?"

While I appreciate your creative doublespeak, just call it what it is.

[we vs us]

I stand by my statement...  

  "Not raising taxes is now a subsidy?"

While I appreciate your creative doublespeak, just call it what it is.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  

[Red Arrow]

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  

Or a thumb, depending on your skill level.

[RecycleMichael]

Or a thumb, depending on your skill level.

+1

[nathanm]

I stand by my statement...  

  "Not raising taxes is now a subsidy?"

While I appreciate your creative doublespeak, just call it what it is.

The tax code once said "the tax rate for corporations ix x%. Later, it was amended to add a tax break to help out the oil companies while oil prices were in the crapper. Oil prices are no longer in the crapper, but the special tax break continues to exist. You can think of it however you like, but let's be clear about what actually happened.

Edited to add: Also, taxes can't always go down. Sometimes, they must increase. Unless you'd like to return to the Articles of Confederation? If so, I suggest working towards a Constitutional convention.

[Red Arrow]

The tax code once said "the tax rate for corporations ix x%. Later, it was amended to add a tax break to help out the oil companies while oil prices were in the crapper. Oil prices are no longer in the crapper, but the special tax break continues to exist. You can think of it however you like, but let's be clear about what actually happened.

Edited to add: Also, taxes can't always go down. Sometimes, they must increase. Unless you'd like to return to the Articles of Confederation? If so, I suggest working towards a Constitutional convention.

Which tax break are we referring to?  The Oil Depletion Allowance or another one?

[RecycleMichael]

I thought this was a fair article on tax subsidies for oil companies...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

[heironymouspasparagus]

Nik,
You can't be surprised by this.  After all this is the same party that thought it was a good idea to fight the wrong war and kill 4,000 of our kids at a cost of about a trillion dollars (depending on who you listen to.)

[Red Arrow]

Nik,
You can't be surprised by this.  After all this is the same party that thought it was a good idea to fight the wrong war and kill 4,000 of our kids at a cost of about a trillion dollars (depending on who you listen to.)

I know Eisenhower sent some early advisors but I believe LBJ escalated the situation in Viet Nam after defeating Goldwater by painting him as a warmonger. (LBJ was not a Republican for those here too young to remember.)  I seem to remember losing a few of our "kids" there too. 

[TeeDub]

Nik,
You can't be surprised by this.  After all this is the same party that thought it was a good idea to fight the wrong war and kill 4,000 of our kids at a cost of about a trillion dollars (depending on who you listen to.)

Don't worry.   If you just vote for Obama he will close Guantanamo and bring the troops home.