Obama renews call to cut 'big oil' subsidies
SourceWashington (CNN) -- Declaring that the American oil industry is "booming," President Barack Obama said Thursday the nation will be watching to see where Congress stands on his push to end tax breaks for the major oil companies.
"With record profits and rising production, I'm not worried about the big oil companies," Obama said shortly before a scheduled Senate vote on the issue. "... I think it's time they got by without more help from taxpayers who are having a tough enough time paying their bills and filling up their tanks."
The president's statement and the Senate vote were attempts to gain a political advantage over Republicans as rising gas prices continue to hurt and anger American voters in an election year.
Even if the Democratic-sponsored plan eventually passes the Senate, it has little chance of winning approval in the Republican-controlled House.
He is wasting his time. Also if the subsidies are cut, I would think oil prices would rise more due to the fact they would pass the cost down to the public. IMHO.Even if the Democratic-sponsored plan eventually passes the Senate, it has little chance of winning approval in the Republican-controlled House.
Yep. You think the oil companies are going to take it in the shorts? Nope.Originally Posted by shermbodius
I don't have a problem with subsidizing a new industry to get it off the ground or helping keep one afloat during a crisis. But a well established, highly profitable industry doesn't not need tax payer subsidies. It's ridiculous.
Why should we subsidize big oil when they are making mega profits?
So they can drill baby drill. Instead of complaining buy some stock in the company's and get some of the profits for yourself.
Alright, since you didn't read the first two posts.
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell referred to the Democratic majority's "brilliant plan on how to deal with gas prices: raise taxes on energy companies, when gas is already hovering around $4 a gallon. Then block consideration of anything else—just to make sure gas prices don't go anywhere but up." "Somehow they thought that doing this would set up some kind of a political win for them, which I never really understood," he added. "I mean, I can't imagine anybody giving them any high-fives for not lowering the price of gas. But anyway, that was the plan."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._in_2005_.html
White House press secretary Jay Carney had no answer as to why Obama supported tax breaks for oil companies as a Senator in 2005, but now opposes them as President.
Oil companies have posted record profits for the last few years; I don't think they need subsidizing. Right now, you are paying them twice--through taxes and through the pump.
Then again, I see petroleum as a strategic asset, and question why we (as a country) don't control its production more closely.
He was "for it before he was against it".
Its called the birth of the electric car, Oil companies over the next few years are going to become less and less needed by us. And as thier need lowers they have to have a margin, so i guess they better eat while they can.Oil companies have posted record profits for the last few years; I don't think they need subsidizing. Right now, you are paying them twice--through taxes and through the pump.
Right now the electric car isn't much further along than the Wright Brothers Flyer. It's going to be a while before IC powered car are obsolete.
I am calling for myself to win the Megamillions jackpot on Friday.
I think I have better chances in my endevor than Obama has in his.
More drilling will only increase supply and reduce profit margins.
Possibly there is a link between Govt "subsidies" here in the US and the domestic market for electric/hybrid cars ?
I feel a mix of shame and pity every time I hear a "Detroit" manufacturer brag about their new hybrid that gets 38MPG, while I drive my 2004 Toyota Prius at 50MPG.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
