• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Wants Research to Wean Vehicles off Oil.....

First off, oil companies aren't deducting the cost of assets. They're deducting the cost of doing business, i.e. a loss. Second, every other business deducts 75%+ of their gross income.

Oil companies don't get government money and they don't receive any special tax breaks, no matter how many times you want to post it, it still won't be true.



"Here's a look at the history of subsidies for oil exploration in the United States.

Origins

The Congressional Research Service states the fledgling oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.

Both of those subsidies still exist. The Obama administration claims the average subsidy for huge oil companies is $4 billion per year. The bill in the Senate would have saved $24 billion in 10 years. The White House claims when gas goes up one cent per gallon, oil companies make $200 million more per month.

Statistics

The American Chemical Society cites a report by Double Bottom Line Venture Capital that explains how the oil industry has reaped benefits from subsidies. From 1918 to 2009, the average annual subsidy was $4.86 billion. By comparison, the nuclear energy industry gets around $3.5 billion per year.

When the study adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the oil and gas industry received subsidies amounting to $1.8 billion per year in the first 15 years of the fledgling industry. The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.

Current Status

The Obama administration contends the oil industry no longer needs help. The three largest oil companies made $80 billion in profits combined in 2011, which amounts to $200 million per day. The White House also asserts America uses 20 percent of the world's oil but only has two percent of the world's oil reserves. Oil drilling continues in all areas of the United States and oil rigs are plentiful in the Gulf of Mexico, the White House blog states.

The New York Times had an article dated July 3, 2010, in the middle of the Gulf oil spill. Deepwater Horizon rented the sunken rig to BP. The company used an oil industry subsidy to write off 70 percent of the cost of the rent for the rig which amounted to a deduction of $225,000 per day. "

History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century
 
"Here's a look at the history of subsidies for oil exploration in the United States.

Origins

The Congressional Research Service states the fledgling oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.

Both of those subsidies still exist. The Obama administration claims the average subsidy for huge oil companies is $4 billion per year. The bill in the Senate would have saved $24 billion in 10 years. The White House claims when gas goes up one cent per gallon, oil companies make $200 million more per month.

Statistics

The American Chemical Society cites a report by Double Bottom Line Venture Capital that explains how the oil industry has reaped benefits from subsidies. From 1918 to 2009, the average annual subsidy was $4.86 billion. By comparison, the nuclear energy industry gets around $3.5 billion per year.

When the study adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the oil and gas industry received subsidies amounting to $1.8 billion per year in the first 15 years of the fledgling industry. The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.

Current Status

The Obama administration contends the oil industry no longer needs help. The three largest oil companies made $80 billion in profits combined in 2011, which amounts to $200 million per day. The White House also asserts America uses 20 percent of the world's oil but only has two percent of the world's oil reserves. Oil drilling continues in all areas of the United States and oil rigs are plentiful in the Gulf of Mexico, the White House blog states.

The New York Times had an article dated July 3, 2010, in the middle of the Gulf oil spill. Deepwater Horizon rented the sunken rig to BP. The company used an oil industry subsidy to write off 70 percent of the cost of the rent for the rig which amounted to a deduction of $225,000 per day. "

History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century

Do you even know what a subsidy is?

Look, welcome to the real world...OIL COMPANIES AND DRILLING CONTRACTORS GET THE SAME TAX DEDUCTIONS THAT ANY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES GETS!

The New York Times had an article dated July 3, 2010, in the middle of the Gulf oil spill. Deepwater Horizon rented the sunken rig to BP. The company used an oil industry subsidy to write off 70 percent of the cost of the rent for the rig which amounted to a deduction of $225,000 per day. "

Just like any other business can write off the cost of rented equipment. What part of this don't you understand? And, as far as I know, any other company can write off 100% of the cost of rented equipment, which means the oil companies are getting screwed out of 30%.

If I'm a hotdog vendor and I rent my hotdog cart, can you guess what I'm going to do? That's right, I'm going to deduct the cost of renting the hotdog cart.

Stop with the propaganda, because no matter how many times you say it, it still won't be true.
 
Its in the goals of the Constitution, the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

And you think that the preamble is legal permission for the govt to fund energy research?
 
Like it or not, the Constitution is not the end-all, be-all of everything I wish people would stop pretending that it is.

Its the rules by which the federal govt operates. Thus its the end all for them. If you dont like it, change it.
 
Its the rules by which the federal govt operates. Thus its the end all for them. If you dont like it, change it.

In theory. In practice, not so much. We don't live in a dream world, sorry.
 
I don't see why Obama isn't leading by example if he's so convinced of the viability of electric and hybrid vehicles. Why doesn't he issue an executive order mandating all federal government vehicles purchased must be electric or hybrids, thus making them more viable for the automakers. As well, why doesn't he trade in all those big, flashy, multi-ton SUVs and get a fleet of armored Prius's to tool around town in.

Obama is great at preaching, telling others what they should or shouldn't do, but the fool never leads by example.
 
I don't see why Obama isn't leading by example if he's so convinced of the viability of electric and hybrid vehicles. Why doesn't he issue an executive order mandating all federal government vehicles purchased must be electric or hybrids, thus making them more viable for the automakers. As well, why doesn't he trade in all those big, flashy, multi-ton SUVs and get a fleet of armored Prius's to tool around town in.

Obama is great at preaching, telling others what they should or shouldn't do, but the fool never leads by example.
Dude: you want to check out the fuel bill when Air Force One takes the whole circus sideshow on the road. OR when the Comander-in-chief gets his jollies by invading and occupying a sovereign state for 10 years or so.

No iteration of the Uniparty has a green page anywhere in their playbook.
 
What do you suggest then? Just do whatever you want?

I'm saying that in theory, that's how it's supposed to work, but in practice, it's just not. There are inherent problems when you have a document written nearly 250 years ago and the ideal that it's supposed to direct how the government works. It just doesn't work that way.
 
The idea that government can help things along with technology is valid, but at some point the private sector HAS to take the lead and move forward with it. Right now, it would be really great to wean ourselves off oil, but it is obvious at this point that the private sector doesn't have any more incentive to do anything more than they are now. It's time for government to take a back seat and let the idea fail or succeed on it's own.

If it's a good idea, the help the government has already provided should propel it forward enough. If it's not, it will fail. It's now for the private sector to decide that fate.
 
I don't see why Obama isn't leading by example if he's so convinced of the viability of electric and hybrid vehicles. Why doesn't he issue an executive order mandating all federal government vehicles purchased must be electric or hybrids, thus making them more viable for the automakers. As well, why doesn't he trade in all those big, flashy, multi-ton SUVs and get a fleet of armored Prius's to tool around town in.

Obama is great at preaching, telling others what they should or shouldn't do, but the fool never leads by example.


... a little research to check your facts before you post is never a bad idea. It minimizes the prospect of looking foolish.

President Obama Orders Federal Agencies to Buy Green Vehicles by 2015 | Geekosystem

AFP: Obama orders US agencies to buy green vehicles

Hyundai Sonata Hybrid Is The Government’s Green Car Of Choice | The Truth About Cars

U S Government Cuts Fuel Expenses Using Green Vehicles

The last article stating that the US government is the world's largest buyer of green vehicles.

Now, it might be fair game to challenge the effectiveness and wisdom of the move, but its ignorance to suggest no such move was made.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that in theory, that's how it's supposed to work, but in practice, it's just not. There are inherent problems when you have a document written nearly 250 years ago and the ideal that it's supposed to direct how the government works. It just doesn't work that way.

Answer the question. How are we supposed to then live in a system based on laws, if everyone ignores the laws? What should I do when the govt tries to do something the law says its cant?
 
... a little research to check your facts before you post is never a bad idea. It minimizes the prospect of looking foolish.

President Obama Orders Federal Agencies to Buy Green Vehicles by 2015 | Geekosystem

AFP: Obama orders US agencies to buy green vehicles

Hyundai Sonata Hybrid Is The Government’s Green Car Of Choice | The Truth About Cars

U S Government Cuts Fuel Expenses Using Green Vehicles

The last article stating that the US government is the world's largest buyer of green vehicles.

Now, it might be fair game to challenge the effectiveness and wisdom of the move, but its ignorance to suggest no such move was made.

Fair enough - but why wait until 2015? Why did GM have to shut down production of the Chevy Volt if the US government is buying so many green vehicles and the US government is a principal shareholder of GM stock?

The last article states that the US government purchases 60,000 vehicles a year, as of 2011 and the second last article states that the US government purchased 1,800 green vehicles in 2012. Purchasing green vehicles at the rate of about 3% of the annual fleet purchases does not sound to me like a great commitment to weaning the government off oil onto green vehicles. It sounds to me like good political window dressing to say you're acting but not a commitment to put your money where your mouth is.

BTW, I don't feel foolish at all pointing out the hypocrisy of this President.
 
finite resources are finite. the time to prepare is now.

Thats some sales pitch.

Sry Helix, when ever I hear a Liberal Democrat politician tell me something like that I expect to get ripped off.

Like I said if the Democrat Party hadn't hijacked renewable enrgy and had left it up to the private sector we would have a legitimate shot at creating something clean and renewable.

Photo volataic isn't clean or renewable, and wind is just dumb.
 
"Here's a look at the history of subsidies for
oil exploration in the United States.

Origins

The Congressional Research Service states the fledgling oil industry in the United States first received government assistance in 1916. That was when intangible drilling costs were able to be fully deducted from a company's expenses for tax purposes. In 1926, a write-off for cost depletion was introduced. That provision allowed oil companies to deduct costs based upon overall gross receipts and not just the actual value of the oil.

Both of those subsidies still exist. The Obama administration claims the average subsidy for huge oil companies is $4 billion per year. The bill in the Senate would have saved $24 billion in 10 years. The White House claims when gas goes up one cent per gallon, oil companies make $200 million more per month.

Statistics

The American Chemical Society cites a report by Double Bottom Line Venture Capital that explains how the oil industry has reaped benefits from subsidies. From 1918 to 2009, the average annual subsidy was $4.86 billion. By comparison, the nuclear energy industry gets around $3.5 billion per year.

When the study adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, the oil and gas industry received subsidies amounting to $1.8 billion per year in the first 15 years of the fledgling industry. The American Coalition for Ethanol estimates that when combined with state and local government aid to large oil companies, subsidies amount to anywhere from $133.8 billion to $280.8 billion annually from all sources of taxpayer aid that goes to the oil and gas industry.

Current Status

The Obama administration contends the oil industry no longer needs help. The three largest oil companies made $80 billion in profits combined in 2011, which amounts to $200 million per day. The White House also asserts America uses 20 percent of the world's oil but only has two percent of the world's oil reserves. Oil drilling continues in all areas of the United States and oil rigs are plentiful in the Gulf of Mexico, the White House blog states.

The New York Times had an article dated July 3, 2010, in the middle of the Gulf oil spill. Deepwater Horizon rented the sunken rig to BP. The company used an oil industry subsidy to write off 70 percent of the cost of the rent for the rig which amounted to a deduction of $225,000 per day. "

History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century

There are NO subsidies, unless you can show me the line item in the budget that shows all of the checks getting cut to BIG OIL.

Otherwise, thry get the same "subsidies" as Apple gets.

I don't think Apple needs help anymore, do you ?
 
Thats some sales pitch.

Sry Helix, when ever I hear a Liberal Democrat politician tell me something like that I expect to get ripped off.

Like I said if the Democrat Party hadn't hijacked renewable enrgy and had left it up to the private sector we would have a legitimate shot at creating something clean and renewable.

Photo volataic isn't clean or renewable, and wind is just dumb.

i'm fairly interested in thorium nuclear, and there is a ton of energy in the ocean going completely untapped. i also like wind energy. they just built a massive wind farm outside my town, and it's pretty stunning.

with the right planning and policies, though, i think we'll see some new tech that's barely on the radar right now.
 
Answer the question. How are we supposed to then live in a system based on laws, if everyone ignores the laws? What should I do when the govt tries to do something the law says its cant?

We're not, but that has nothing to do with the Constitution, does it? We can pass laws and hold people accountable to those laws entirely without the Constitution, nations have been doing that since the dawn of human civilization.
 
No one is claiming it is. ???

We were talking about energy generation and we were also talking about oil use.

That is contrary to the reality of the cost of solar and wind technology going down as the price of oil goes up.

You haven't shown any correlation between the two. The price of solar and wind have been reduced by increased subsidy, not a lessening of manufacturing cost.

I agree onsite systems are the most efficient, its why so many of us now have onsite systems to reduce our need for grid power.

Not "so many of us", a few of us. And what we generate is nowhere near our need. So the vast majority rely upon transmitted power from a distant location.

What "woe" are you talking about? The majority of commuters do not use buses and trains, they use cars, the majority of which could be electric cars that do not use an oil product for energy. 49% of oil use in the US is gasoline.

First, that 49% is a little high, regardless, you're trading one shortage for another. Electric cars rely upon rare earth metals that internal combustion engines don't. Let's just take ONE of them - lithium. Are you of the impression that lithium is of unlimited supply or renewable?
 
i'm fairly interested in thorium nuclear, and
there is a ton of energy in the ocean
going completely untapped. i also like wind energy. they just built a massive wind farm outside my town, and it's pretty stunning.

with the right planning and policies, though, i think we'll see some new tech that's barely on the radar right now.

I'm not completly against alternative energies but they have to work.

Ive been a technophile since I was a kid and love to see innovation, but true innovation is developed from true demand and right now very little demand exist.

Wind farms and solar on a large scale are very cost prohibitive and are not "clean".
 
Do you even know what a subsidy is?

Look, welcome to the real world...OIL COMPANIES AND DRILLING CONTRACTORS GET THE SAME TAX DEDUCTIONS THAT ANY OTHER BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES GETS!



Just like any other business can write off the cost of rented equipment. What part of this don't you understand? And, as far as I know, any other company can write off 100% of the cost of rented equipment, which means the oil companies are getting screwed out of 30%.

If I'm a hotdog vendor and I rent my hotdog cart, can you guess what I'm going to do? That's right, I'm going to deduct the cost of renting the hotdog cart.

Stop with the propaganda, because no matter how many times you say it, it still won't be true.


What I've documented shows it is not the same as every business gets.
 
And you think that the preamble is legal permission for the govt to fund energy research?


Its always been sufficient in the past.
 
What I've documented shows it is not the same as every business gets.

Actually what you've documented is precisely the "subsidy" (a mischaracterization of the write off to begin with) many if not all businesses have available.
 
There are NO subsidies, unless you can show me the line item in the budget that shows all of the checks getting cut to BIG OIL.

Otherwise, thry get the same "subsidies" as Apple gets.

I don't think Apple needs help anymore, do you ?



If there are no subsidies, then they won't miss them when they are gone, will they?
 
I support it. we should have done this and more in the mid 1970s. better late than never.

Were you even alive then, you didn't even have a PC sitting on your desk back then. You people always seem to think you're smarter than everyone else. The idea of Lithium-ion was only in the lab at that point. Hydrogen fuel cells were only found on Apollo missions, care to find out how much they cost back then? There is nothing late here at all.
 
What I've documented shows it is not the same as every business gets.

Your docs don't show anything, except that the information was composed by someone who doesn't have a clue how the tax code works, nor a single iota about how businesses are run in this country. It's propaganda and nothing more. You should be embarressed that you actually used that info to support your argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom