PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul's vote on Big Oil




Agorism
05-19-2011, 03:55 PM
“Small Government” Rand Paul votes for Big Oil Government Subsidies

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/19/small-government-rand-paul-votes-for-big-oil-government-subsidies/

Roxi
05-19-2011, 04:20 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.940:


looks to me like this bill would limit tax breaks for businesses involved in the oil industry, which would give more power to the government. So in turn, looks like his vote was the right way to go, and calling it a subsidy is dishonest.

low preference guy
05-19-2011, 04:20 PM
cut taxes =\= give subsidies

Roxi
05-19-2011, 04:35 PM
cut taxes =\= give subsidies

Right, but if government limits tax breaks on one type of business, wouldn't voting yes be setting a precedent to go ahead and limit tax breaks across the board on different types of businesses therefore giving more power to government?

I also find it possible that he didn't have the opportunity to actually read the bill, which would also explain a no vote. I don't quite understand all the points of the bill myself, because I just skimmed through it, I just think at first glance it looks like his vote may have been the right one.

low preference guy
05-19-2011, 04:37 PM
Right, but if government limits tax breaks on one type of business, wouldn't voting yes be setting a precedent to go ahead and limit tax breaks across the board on different types of businesses therefore giving more power to government?

i think less money to the government is less power to the government. now, the way to be fair is to give tax breaks to all other businesses as well.

Badger Paul
05-20-2011, 12:08 AM
I'm certain there are a lot of business who love to get the kind of tax breaks they do. That's why we need the change the tax system completely instead drilling holes in it for political favors.

Cleaner44
05-20-2011, 12:31 AM
Or to be more accurate:
“Small Government” Rand Paul votes against raising taxes on oil companies.

Interesting that keeping the tax rate at it's current level somehow equates a subsidy in the mind of liberals.

Equating tax cuts to government subsidy checks is one of the oldest Democrat trick and one of the most blatantly dishonest actions they undertake.

Cleaner44
05-20-2011, 12:57 AM
“Small Government” Rand Paul votes for Big Oil Government Subsidies

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/19/small-government-rand-paul-votes-for-big-oil-government-subsidies/

Why start a thread with a title like this when the story is false?

Why not instead call out the lie on the blog where you found this?

When people create lies about Ron or Rand we should hold them accountable for their false use of words. I suggest when you find garbage like this, you immediately gather some facts and post a quality response that sets the facts straight and exposes the dishonest author.

Agorism
05-20-2011, 08:20 AM
bump

specsaregood
05-20-2011, 08:23 AM
Or to be more accurate:
“Small Government” Rand Paul votes against raising taxes on oil companies.


Or to be more accurate: Rand Paul votes against raising gas prices to consumers.

Romulus
05-20-2011, 12:42 PM
Or to be more accurate: Rand Paul votes against raising gas prices to consumers.

Winner
+rep

Napoleon's Shadow
05-20-2011, 02:18 PM
Only in the minds of Marxists is a tax break a "subsidy"

echebota
05-20-2011, 03:05 PM
Ron is very very consistent when voting on any tax related bill. And I completely agree with his strategy. Here is the list of all possible tax related outcomes that any new bill entails along with the Ron's most likely vote decision. Clearly the oil tax cuts removal bill is of type 4, and Ron rightfully voted NO.

1. Decrease tax for everyone - vote YES
2. Decrease tax for some - vote YES
3. Changes nothing - vote YES/NO/NEUTRAL depending on the substance of the bill
4. Increase tax for some - vote NO
5. Increase tax for everyone - vote NO

YumYum
05-20-2011, 03:18 PM
Oil companies do receive subsidies. They receive grant money for research and exploration. So, with regards to this bill, is it to cut tax loopholes for the oil companies, or cut oil company subsidies?

Billay
05-20-2011, 03:33 PM
I didn't know Lawrence O'Donnel posted on here.

r3voLt
05-20-2011, 04:14 PM
Recently Rand proposed a 4 month gasoline tax "vacation" ... I agreed that the gasoline tax is absurd, especially when you realize that the oil companies are actually making less profit than our government is collecting in taxes. Rand strongly advocated expanding our drilling, mining, and nuclear efforts for energy. While I agree in the short term that a little more drilling isn't a bad idea, it should not be the focus of long term solutions. Rand seemed, in that speech, to be completely opposed to sustainable energy practices, literally laughing off the idea that wind power is a viable means of producing energy. While wind power does have its shortcomings, it is certainly a more sustainable practice than using up a finite amount of resources.

A little more drilling is not a bad idea to hold us over, but we really need to stop pursuing oil and coal as our primary means of energy production in the long run. Drilling is a short term solution. Just like in 1973 when Nixon put the final nail in the coffin for the gold standard. It may have helped people out for a short time back then, but it is screwing us royally now.

I simply don't think that Rand sees it that way. Which perhaps explains why so many neocons love him and despise his father. I think it would do Rand some good to try and draw on his old man's logic a little more often. After listening to his last proposal I get the feeling he's beginning to lean the way of the special interests.

Paul Or Nothing II
05-26-2011, 02:58 AM
Recently Rand proposed a 4 month gasoline tax "vacation" ... I agreed that the gasoline tax is absurd, especially when you realize that the oil companies are actually making less profit than our government is collecting in taxes. Rand strongly advocated expanding our drilling, mining, and nuclear efforts for energy. While I agree in the short term that a little more drilling isn't a bad idea, it should not be the focus of long term solutions. Rand seemed, in that speech, to be completely opposed to sustainable energy practices, literally laughing off the idea that wind power is a viable means of producing energy. While wind power does have its shortcomings, it is certainly a more sustainable practice than using up a finite amount of resources.

A little more drilling is not a bad idea to hold us over, but we really need to stop pursuing oil and coal as our primary means of energy production in the long run. Drilling is a short term solution. Just like in 1973 when Nixon put the final nail in the coffin for the gold standard. It may have helped people out for a short time back then, but it is screwing us royally now.

I simply don't think that Rand sees it that way. Which perhaps explains why so many neocons love him and despise his father. I think it would do Rand some good to try and draw on his old man's logic a little more often. After listening to his last proposal I get the feeling he's beginning to lean the way of the special interests.

Wind power is a joke, it's only being pushed by those who'd benefit financially from it, it'd either cause prices of everything to skyrocket & people'd've to pay higher prices DIRECTLY, or (this'd be more likely) govt would've to subsidize it & that'd be done by govt STEALING money from the people INDIRECTLY by inflating the money-supply or by raising taxes but one way or another, people'd pay much higher prices for energy, anyway. So why not let the free market do its work? When the prices rise on their own then someone will come up with a better way of supplying energy so long as people're willing to buy it but govt definitely needs to get out of the energy sector because all it can do is foster more corporatism, nothing else, just like wind power is being pushed by those businesses that'd benefit from it, & same for any other "alternative energy sources".

I don't like Rand much at all, I think he's untrustworth & nothing like his father but he's not taking a vastly different stand to Ron Paul. Here's Ron's video titled "Energy Exploration is None of the Government's Business" - watch?v=JOYY0Ra0Nxg

awake
05-26-2011, 05:07 AM
When the government steals less from you this is a subsidy...? We truly live in a land of bizarro.

dean.engelhardt
05-26-2011, 06:40 AM
Oil companies do receive subsidies. They receive grant money for research and exploration. So, with regards to this bill, is it to cut tax loopholes for the oil companies, or cut oil company subsidies?

This is the first I've heard of an actual subsidy. How much grant money do they receive?

malkusm
05-26-2011, 06:46 AM
Ron is very very consistent when voting on any tax related bill. And I completely agree with his strategy. Here is the list of all possible tax related outcomes that any new bill entails along with the Ron's most likely vote decision. Clearly the oil tax cuts removal bill is of type 4, and Ron rightfully voted NO.

1. Decrease tax for everyone - vote YES
2. Decrease tax for some - vote YES
3. Changes nothing - vote YES/NO/NEUTRAL depending on the substance of the bill
4. Increase tax for some - vote NO
5. Increase tax for everyone - vote NO

Justin Amash takes the same approach, but substitutes in a "NO" vote in #2....and I actually like his reasoning better than Ron, on this particular issue.

dean.engelhardt
05-26-2011, 07:00 AM
Interesting read:


Just to re-cap a few pertinent features of these "subsidies" to oil companies that Obama wants to cut.


They are all tax "breaks," or earnings that oil companies get to keep, not money paid out from the US Treasury.
The amount of earnings not collected in taxes is about $4.3 billion per year -- about 0.2% of this year's deficit and enough to fund about 10 hours of current US government spending.
A full $3.55 billion of that amount (82%) is due to the way taxes are treated for all industries or manufacturers. To change these tax laws only for oil companies would require singling them out among all industries for special mistreatment. (I'm not a lawyer, but that sounds like a bill of attainder to me, something our Constitution forbids.)
The only tax in which the oil industry seems to get special treatment compared to other industries is intangible drilling costs. The amount of that subsidy? That would be $0.78 billion per year -- enough to fund less than two hours of federal spending in 2011, and not even half the amount we are lending a foreign-owned and state-owned oil company for drilling offshore Brazil.
Oil companies already pay tax rates of 40-50% of income. For one company, Exxon, in one quarter of one year, that amount was over $8 billion, or almost double the so-called tax "subsidy" for all oil companies for an entire year. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/about_those_oil_subsidies.html)

This article says the only oil company that receives a subsidy is a Brazilain state owned oil company.

I think ethonal subsidies are a better target to reduce spending.