• 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!

Oil rises above $90 amid US crude supply drop

I suppose you would also like me to explain for you what the definition if IS is? You can't bully me into doing your homework for you, this isn't high school. Well, it isn't for me, it might be for you.
As The Prof would say, GROW UP......


I know what a subsidy is, you don't seem to. Ah well.

j-mac
 
Just so every one knows, Cat used an article earlier put out there by "the center for public integrity" Great name I know....But further research into the funding of this site shows that it is far from on the up and up....

The Center has been criticized for accepting large funds from George Soros, a politically active billionaire and critic of the Bush administration.[28][31][32][33] The Web site of one of Soros' organizations, the Open Society Institute, discloses four grants to the Center, all made before his entry into the 2004 presidential contest. They are:

A $72,400 one-year grant in 2000 supporting "an investigative journalism series on prosecutorial misconduct."[35]
A $75,000 one-year grant in 2001 supporting "an examination of wrongful convictions resulting from prosecutorial misconduct."[36]
A $100,000 one-year grant in 2002 "to investigate the political spending of the telecommunications industry on the federal, state and local levels."[37]
A $1 million three-year grant in 2002 "to support the Global Access Project."[38]

Center for Public Integrity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So that should be enough to take a skeptic eye at Cat's rhetoric.

j-mac
 
Just so every one knows, Cat used an article earlier put out there by "the center for public integrity" Great name I know....But further research into the funding of this site shows that it is far from on the up and up....



So that should be enough to take a skeptic eye at Cat's rhetoric.

j-mac

Cat always uses far left wing sites
 
Shows I must be right and you have nothing to counter it

Theres no need to counter it. The fact that you believe either party, on the whole, cares about anything other than their individual gain just shows how deluded you are.

Just look at the facts: Who do the dems fight for and who do the republicans fight for? The answer, big corps just different brand-names of big crops
 
Theres no need to counter it. The fact that you believe either party, on the whole, cares about anything other than their individual gain just shows how deluded you are.

Just look at the facts: Who do the dems fight for and who do the republicans fight for? The answer, big corps just different brand-names of big crops


Whom are corps made up of?


j-mac
 
Whom are corps made up of?


j-mac

Really? You are going to try to play that argument? In the legal sense, thanks to a host of Supreme court issues, a crops is a super individual who sole purpose in life is to make money and is legally obligated to do so, at any cost. Its immortal, more ore less.

When a crops gets a favorable ruling in a court, or a special pass from the executive or legislative branch, the crops prospers but thats about it, in the long run anyways. Sure, a few people may get the transitory benefit of a job, but thats not permanent because as soon as profits start to decrease those people get fired and the CEO will get a bonus for making that decision.
 
Last edited:
Go back through the thread, its already been documented that our gas prices are so much lower than the rest of the world because of our heavy subsidies to the oil companies through our taxes.

I thought you were opposed to higher taxes?

Or more probably the outrageous taxes EU countries charge on gas. An article was posted that Norway laughs at our gas prices. Maybe if they didn't have to pay $5.38 per gallon in taxes, they wouldn't have anything to laugh about.
 
Really? You are going to try to play that argument? In the legal sense, thanks to a host of Supreme court issues, a crops is a super individual who sole purpose in life is to make money and is legally obligated to do so, at any cost. Its immortal, more ore less.

When a crops gets a favorable ruling in a court, or a special pass from the executive or legislative branch, the crops prospers but thats about it, in the long run anyways. Sure, a few people may get the transitory benefit of a job, but thats not permanent because as soon as profits start to decrease those people get fired and the CEO will get a bonus for making that decision.


I see, so corporations should be unprofitable?

j-mac
 
Or more probably the outrageous taxes EU countries charge on gas. An article was posted that Norway laughs at our gas prices. Maybe if they didn't have to pay $5.38 per gallon in taxes, they wouldn't have anything to laugh about.

They add the tax directly to the sale of the product rather than from taxpayer subsidies, which has resulted in an overall lower price and spurs conservation, something far-right conservatives in this country find abhorrent.
 
Last edited:
I see, so corporations should be unprofitable?

j-mac

Not at all. They should be profitable, they just shouldn't be ran using the evil maximum "Profit at all cost"
 

If you are going to spam every thread, at least be honest about it ~

From your article:

This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”
 
Last edited:
Go back through the thread, its already been documented that our gas prices are so much lower than the rest of the world because of our heavy subsidies to the oil companies through our taxes.

I thought you were opposed to higher taxes?

Are those "subsidies" really just tax cuts that are available to all corporations?
 
Are those "subsidies" really just tax cuts that are available to all corporations?

No, they are not, but thanks for asking:

"This report by the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) identifies and quantifies the many external costs of using motor vehicles and the internal combustion engine that are not directly reflected in the retail price Americans pay for gasoline. These are costs that consumers pay indirectly by way of increased taxes, insurance costs, and retail prices in other sectors.

The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five primary areas: (1) Tax Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies; (3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline, result in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14.

TAX SUBSIDIES

The federal government provides the oil industry with numerous tax breaks designed to ensure that domestic companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers. Federal tax breaks that directly benefit oil companies include: the Percentage Depletion Allowance (a subsidy of $784 million to $1 billion per year), the Nonconventional Fuel Production Credit ($769 to $900 million), immediate expensing of exploration and development costs ($200 to $255 million), the Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit ($26.3 to $100 million), foreign tax credits ($1.11 to $3.4 billion), foreign income deferrals ($183 to $318 million), and accelerated depreciation allowances ($1.0 to $4.5 billion).

Tax subsidies do not end at the federal level. The fact that most state income taxes are based on oil firms' deflated federal tax bill results in undertaxation of $125 to $323 million per year. Many states also impose fuel taxes that are lower than regular sales taxes, amounting to a subsidy of $4.8 billion per year to gasoline retailers and users. New rules under the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are likely to provide the petroleum industry with additional tax subsidies of $2.07 billion per year. In total, annual tax breaks that support gasoline production and use amount to $9.1 to $17.8 billion.

PROGRAM SUBSIDIES

Government support of US petroleum producers does not end with tax breaks. Program subsidies that support the extraction, production, and use of petroleum and petroleum fuel products total $38 to $114.6 billion each year. The largest portion of this total is federal, state, and local governments' $36 to $112 billion worth of spending on the transportation infrastructure, such as the construction, maintenance, and repair of roads and bridges. Other program subsidies include funding of research and development ($200 to $220 million), export financing subsidies ($308.5 to $311.9 million), support from the Army Corps of Engineers ($253.2 to $270 million), the Department of Interior's Oil Resources Management Programs ($97 to $227 million), and government expenditures on regulatory oversight, pollution cleanup, and liability costs ($1.1 to $1.6 billion).

PROTECTION SUBSIDIES

Beyond program subsidies, governments, and thus taxpayers, subsidize a large portion of the protection services required by petroleum producers and users. Foremost among these is the cost of military protection for oil-rich regions of the world. US Defense Department spending allocated to safeguard the world's petroleum resources total some $55 to $96.3 billion per year. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal government entity designed to supplement regular oil supplies in the event of disruptions due to military conflict or natural disaster, costs taxpayers an additional $5.7 billion per year. The Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration provide other protection services totaling $566.3 million per year. Of course, local and state governments also provide protection services for oil industry companies and gasoline users. These externalized police, fire, and emergency response expenditures add up to $27.2 to $38.2 billion annually.

ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SOCIAL COSTS

Environmental, health, and social costs represent the largest portion of the externalized price Americans pay for their gasoline reliance. These expenses total some $231.7 to $942.9 billion every year. The internal combustion engine contributes heavily to localized air pollution. While the amount of damage that automobile fumes cause is certainly very high, the total dollar value is rather difficult to quantify. Approximately $39 billion per year is the lowest minimum estimate made by researchers in the field of transportation cost analysis, although the actual total is surely much higher and may exceed $600 billion.

Considering that researchers have conclusively linked auto pollution to increased health problems and mortality, the CTA report's estimate of $29.3 to $542.4 billion for the annual uncompensated health costs associated with auto emissions may not adequately reflect the value of lost or diminished human life. Other costs associated with localized air pollution attributable to gasoline-powered automobiles include decreased agricultural yields ($2.1 to $4.2 billion), reduced visibility ($6.1 to $44.5 billion), and damage to buildings and materials ($1.2 to $9.6 billion). Global warming ($3 to $27.5 billion), water pollution ($8.4 to $36.8 billion), noise pollution ($6 to $12 billion), and improper disposal of batteries, tires, engine fluids, and junked cars ($4.4 billion) also add to the environmental consequences wrought by automobiles.

Some of the costs associated with the real price of gasoline go beyond the effects of acquiring and burning fuel to reflect social conditions partially or wholly created by the automobile's preeminence in the culture of the United States. Chief among these conditions is the growth of urban sprawl. While monetizing the impact of sprawl may prove a challenging endeavor, several researchers have done significant work on the subject. The costs of sprawl include: additional environmental degradation (up to $58.4 billion), aesthetic degradation of cultural sites (up to $11.7 billion), social deterioration (up to $58.4 billion), additional municipal costs (up to $53.8 billion), additional transportation costs (up to $145 billion), and the barrier effect ($11.7 to $23.4 billion). Because assessment of the costs of sprawl is somewhat subjective and because study of the topic remains in a nascent stage, the CTA report follows the lead of other researchers in field of transportation cost analysis and reduces the total of the potential cost of sprawl by 25% to 50% to arrive at a total of $163.7 to $245.5 billion per year.

OTHER EXTERNAL COSTS

Finally, external costs not included in the first four categories amount to $191.4 to $474.1 billion per year. These include: travel delays due to road congestion ($46.5 to $174.6 billion), uncompensated damages caused by car accidents ($18.3 to $77.2 billion), subsidized parking ($108.7 to $199.3 billion), and insurance losses due to automobile-related climate change ($12.9 billion). The additional cost of $5.0 to $10.1 billion associated with US dependence on imported oil could rise substantially, totaling $7.0 to $36.8 billion, in the event of a sudden price increase for crude oil.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The ultimate result of the externalization of such a large portion of the real price of gasoline is that consumers have no idea how much fueling their cars actually costs them. The majority of people paying just over $1 for a gallon of gasoline at the pump has no idea that through increased taxes, excessive insurance premiums, and inflated prices in other retail sectors that that same gallon of fuel is actually costing them between $5.60 and $15.14. When the price of gasoline is so drastically underestimated in the minds of drivers, it becomes difficult if not impossible to convince them to change their driving habits, accept alternative fuel vehicles, support mass transit, or consider progressive residential and urban development strategies.

The first step toward getting the public to recognize the damage caused by the United States' gasoline dependance is getting the public to recognize how much they are paying for this damage. The best way, in turn, to accomplish this goal is to eliminate government tax subsidies, program subsidies, and protection subsidies for petroleum companies and users, and to internalize the external environmental, health, and social costs associated with gasoline use. This would mean that consumers would see the entire cost of burning gasoline reflected in the price they pay at the pump. Drivers faced with the cost of their gasoline usage up front may have a more difficult time ignoring the harmful effects that their addiction to automobiles and the internal combustion engine have on national security, the environment, their health, and their quality of life. "
What Gasoline Really Costs Us
 
The plan is a part of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.

Obama's proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."

The administration seems to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public-relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."

The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.

The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.

The new office would be funded a total of $300 million through fiscal 2017 for the project.

Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile - The Hill's Floor Action

vote obama, 2012!

tax drivers by the mile!
 
External pollution costs? Consumers should be paying for that, not oil companies. Consumers are the ones who burn the oil, afterall. Furthermore, the "program subsidies" is transportation which we all use. It is not a specific oil company subsidy. And saying that they are subsidized by a US military presence is very misleading. And these tax breaks, again, are they only for oil companies? It does not state that. It implies it, but never states it, leading me to believe that these people are trying to spin.
 
External pollution costs? Consumers should be paying for that, not oil companies. Consumers are the ones who burn the oil, afterall. Furthermore, the "program subsidies" is transportation which we all use. It is not a specific oil company subsidy. And saying that they are subsidized by a US military presence is very misleading. And these tax breaks, again, are they only for oil companies? It does not state that. It implies it, but never states it, leading me to believe that these people are trying to spin.

Thanks once again for your completely unsubstantiated opinion! :sun
 

You are still trying to fleece the flock I see! :sun

From your own article:

“This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”
 
The plan is a part of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.

Obama's proposal seems to follow up on that idea in section 2218 of the draft bill. That section would create, within the Federal Highway Administration, a Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office. It would be tasked with creating a "study framework that defines the functionality of a mileage-based user fee system and other systems."

The administration seems to be aware of the need to prepare the public for what would likely be a controversial change to the way highway funds are collected. For example, the office is called on to serve a public-relations function, as the draft says it should "increase public awareness regarding the need for an alternative funding source for surface transportation programs and provide information on possible approaches."

The draft bill says the "study framework" for the project and a public awareness communications plan should be established within two years of creating the office, and that field tests should begin within four years.

The office would be required to consider four factors in field trials: the capability of states to enforce payment, the reliability of technology, administrative costs and "user acceptance." The draft does not specify where field trials should begin.

The new office would be funded a total of $300 million through fiscal 2017 for the project.

Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile - The Hill's Floor Action

vote obama, 2012!

spend 300 million!

to increase public awareness regarding the need...

to tax drivers by the mile!

LOL!
 
Obama administration floats draft plan to tax cars by the mile - The Hill's Floor Action

vote obama, 2012!

spend 300 million!

to increase public awareness regarding the need...

to tax drivers by the mile!

LOL!

You just counting on people reading your headline without reading what your article says here:

“This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”
 
You just counting on people reading your headline without reading what your article says here

yup, that's why i posted 6 paragraphs

twice

LOL!

vote obama, 2012!

spend 300 million!

to study the functionality...

of taxing drivers by the mile!
 
I see, so corporations should be unprofitable?

j-mac

Great idea, With no profit to be concerned with, just doing what you like to do, not being forced to make more and more money, you wouldn't have ulcers, early heart attacks, or guilt feelings, and you'd have more time to spend with your families.

"Government and cooperation are the laws of life. Anarchy and competition are the laws of death." John Ruskin

ricksfolly
 
Thanks once again for your completely unsubstantiated opinion! :sun

in the face of what should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, idiots opine to the contrary....
 
Great idea, With no profit to be concerned with, just doing what you like to do, not being forced to make more and more money, you wouldn't have ulcers, early heart attacks, or guilt feelings, and you'd have more time to spend with your families.

"Government and cooperation are the laws of life. Anarchy and competition are the laws of death." John Ruskin

ricksfolly

The Ferengi are gonna be on you like stink on sewer, just as soon as they find out you are spreading this "enjoy life" crap.:2razz:
 
Thanks once again for your completely unsubstantiated opinion! :sun

Thanks once again for completely ignoring what I'm saying. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom