Oil subsidies?

larryinlc · 03-01-2011, 08:58 PM

I'll admit, I don't know how this works or why it's needed, but could someone explain to me why this passed? Seems to me in these economic times, we could use all the revenue we can get without giving money away.

With Big Oil raking in record profits, House Democrats offered a Motion to Recommit to the House Republican short-term spending bill this afternoon making a responsible cut to the budget: putting an end to taxpayer-funded subsidies to large oil companies. Repealing these subsidies would save taxpayers tens of billions over the next decade and even ex-Shell CEO John Hofmeister agrees saying “with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary.”
Rep. William Keating (D-MA) offered the motion on the House floor saying “let’s stop sending taxpayers’ money to the most profitable companies in the world.”

...Republicans voted unanimously against the motion, defeating it by a vote of 176-249.

Daily Kos: House GOP votes unanimously to protect big oil subsidies

shooz · 03-02-2011, 12:20 AM

It's OK.
They voted for it because they will get it all back in campaign contributions, lobbying kickbacks and perks.

Funny how we pay for that too, but teachers are freeloaders.

JACOBY · 03-02-2011, 02:07 AM

Maybe we should start taking to the streets like the other countries are doing. I always thought we should have another revolution here get rid of the clowns in office start sending the message that were tired of the crap. Sorry for the rant but I say whats on my mind. The people here have to wise up instead of just crying about the mess.

jolepp · 03-02-2011, 03:41 AM

I suppose business subsidies can make sense to help new industries to get started (or in general making generally useful things happen which would not otherwise); supporting something well estabished doing good without seems plain strange.

Ratmagiclady · 03-02-2011, 06:34 AM

If anyone wanted some proof that this 'budget crisis' is BS to try and force through a right-wing social agenda, there it is again.

Tax cuts to the super rich, corporate subsidies to the super-rich, Big Oil subsidies to the super-rich... deregulation for the super-rich, defunding enforcement of what regulations are left...

But, no, take it out of the teachers and bust unions and gut social services and infrastructure and anything that actually serves the common people *paying* for it. Cause 'the taxpayers can't afford' things that actually do some good.

Shenannigans.

redrockcoulee · 03-02-2011, 06:35 AM

In Alberta speaking against oil subsidies can have you charged with both treason and heresy.

mikemike · 03-02-2011, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by larryinlc

ex-Shell CEO John Hofmeister agrees saying “with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary.”

This guy is an odd ball in the oil industry, he comes from a human resources background while most other oil execs come from engineering or science backgrounds and was never well respected as CEO of shell by the rest of the company. He has always been a sockpuppet for whoever is paying him and continues that tradition in his retirement. Now he is being paid as an alternative energy lobbyist. When oil was $150 a barrel and he was still CEO of shell, he was advocating for greater subsidies.

He is correct that the subsidies are not needed with high oil prices, but they are needed with low oil prices, although with advances in electric cars, biodiesel, and cellulosic ethonal that might not be so...

As to why they are needed at all (without any value judgement upon the industry), oil exploration and production often happens in the most remote places in the world, places without any infrastructure whatsoever. A big thing that the subsidies do is help companies pursue oppurtunities in these locations which means building new roads and innovating with new production methods. Just like Rx drugs the US is the proving ground for crazy ideas and these subsidies are part of the reason why. Eventually this kind of helps the economy because the new technology is developed here by american companies (like the drill that rescued the chilean miners), employs lots of workers at all skill levels, and provides us a strategic bit of energy independence in a worst case scenario where oil would have to be rationed for the civilian population.

I think any subsidies for oil, coal, solar, wind, or electric cars distorts the energy markets and drives up demand for energy in our economy so we should cut back on or eliminate all of the subsidies.

redrockcoulee · 03-02-2011, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by mikemike

This guy is an odd ball in the oil industry, he comes from a human resources background while most other oil execs come from engineering or science backgrounds and was never well respected as CEO of shell by the rest of the company. He has always been a sockpuppet for whoever is paying him and continues that tradition in his retirement. Now he is being paid as an alternative energy lobbyist. When oil was $150 a barrel and he was still CEO of shell, he was advocating for greater subsidies.

He is correct that the subsidies are not needed with high oil prices, but they are needed with low oil prices, although with advances in electric cars, biodiesel, and cellulosic ethonal that might not be so...

As to why they are needed at all (without any value judgement upon the industry), oil exploration and production often happens in the most remote places in the world, places without any infrastructure whatsoever. A big thing that the subsidies do is help companies pursue oppurtunities in these locations which means building new roads and innovating with new production methods. Just like Rx drugs the US is the proving ground for crazy ideas and these subsidies are part of the reason why. Eventually this kind of helps the economy because the new technology is developed here by american companies (like the drill that rescued the chilean miners), employs lots of workers at all skill levels, and provides us a strategic bit of energy independence in a worst case scenario where oil would have to be rationed for the civilian population.

I think any subsidies for oil, coal, solar, wind, or electric cars distorts the energy markets and drives up demand for energy in our economy so we should cut back on or eliminate all of the subsidies.

Mike

While I do not disagree with you on the whys of some of the subsidies. Building infrastruture in some of the places results in great environmental and social destruction or at least disruption as well the pursuit of oil that is perhaps best left where it is until better technologies come around. For the latter I am speaking about the rush to mine the oil at Fort Mac even though it is energy intense. It is not just in the US that there are subsidies and certainly not just in the US that advances in technology and skills advance.

Considering that conservation is still the cheapest means of energy I really do wonder why it is fine to give money or tax breaks to big profitable corporations to disrupt the environment and yet spending the same amount of money directly to people to consume less energy is considered evil or socialism or anti free market )this is not addressed to your comments but just a general musing)? Almost all drilling has negative impacts on the environment and the people living in the area. There is often positive impacts as well but not always to the same peoples.

Ratmagiclady · 03-02-2011, 10:21 AM

Of all the things, according to the GOP, that we 'desperately can't afford to go into debt with,' ... they want to keep us paying for *this?*

*spit.*

They ain't hurting, those oil companies.

Reality check, everyone.

shooz · 03-02-2011, 10:30 AM

Welcome to the plutocracy.....

Leave your brain at the door.........All guns allowed.

Parallax · 03-02-2011, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by larryinlc

I'll admit, I don't know how this works or why it's needed, but could someone explain to me why this passed? ............

Originally posted by shooz

It's OK.
They voted for it because they will get it all back in campaign contributions, lobbying kickbacks and perks......

Politico-economics lesson over for today. Any more questions?

shooz · 03-02-2011, 11:06 AM

Well..........I have out figure out how to use M42 lenses on my K7...........

A 135 3.5..............55 1.8.............55 2.0.

Never tried this before and I have a friend coming over with an adapter.... and need to figure out the dreaded and mystical GREEN button!
Sounds like fun, eh?

Parallax · 03-02-2011, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by shooz

Well..........I have out figure out how to use M42 lenses on my K7...........

A 135 3.5..............55 1.8.............55 2.0.

Never tried this before and I have a friend coming over with an adapter.... and need to figure out the dreaded and mystical GREEN button!
Sounds like fun, eh?

Hey! This is the P&R forum. We don't need to be listening to people drone on about photography stuff. Geez!

Ratmagiclady · 03-02-2011, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by shooz

Well..........I have out figure out how to use M42 lenses on my K7...........

A 135 3.5..............55 1.8.............55 2.0.

Never tried this before and I have a friend coming over with an adapter.... and need to figure out the dreaded and mystical GREEN button!
Sounds like fun, eh?

Well, that's the problem with planned obsolescence: if something actually works the first time, how do you generate demand for *more?*

This is why the Genuine Adapter is a talisman of goodness. Industrial quality as it should be.

Now uncripple the mount, boys. Then your lens lineup will look *great.*

shooz · 03-02-2011, 06:55 PM

Well..........getting pretty heated in here.
Just to bore things out a bit............................

These guys are pretty sweet. Patina on the outside.........Flawless on the inside.

Now I have to try and find a genuine pentax adapter.

Now...back on track.....

It's not called planned obsolescence anymore.
it's Mean Time to Failure. Or MTF.
Is that agumentative enough to avoid an infraction?

03-01-2011, 08:58 PM	#1
larryinlc Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Wisconsin USA Posts: 993	Oil subsidies? I'll admit, I don't know how this works or why it's needed, but could someone explain to me why this passed? Seems to me in these economic times, we could use all the revenue we can get without giving money away. With Big Oil raking in record profits, House Democrats offered a Motion to Recommit to the House Republican short-term spending bill this afternoon making a responsible cut to the budget: putting an end to taxpayer-funded subsidies to large oil companies. Repealing these subsidies would save taxpayers tens of billions over the next decade and even ex-Shell CEO John Hofmeister agrees saying “with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary.” Rep. William Keating (D-MA) offered the motion on the House floor saying “let’s stop sending taxpayers’ money to the most profitable companies in the world.” ...Republicans voted unanimously against the motion, defeating it by a vote of 176-249. Daily Kos: House GOP votes unanimously to protect big oil subsidies

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Oil In Water	bats	Monthly Photo Contests	0	10-01-2010 04:16 PM
Abstract Oil and Water	jupiterstar	Post Your Photos!	4	09-03-2010 09:07 AM
oil on the blades	oatman911	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	02-19-2009 08:27 PM
Is this fungus? Oil? What is it?	greenboy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	02-02-2009 04:40 PM
Oil Crisis? What Oil Crises?	benjikan	General Talk	41	07-22-2008 06:30 AM

03-02-2011, 12:20 AM	#2
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	It's OK. They voted for it because they will get it all back in campaign contributions, lobbying kickbacks and perks. Funny how we pay for that too, but teachers are freeloaders.

03-02-2011, 02:07 AM	#3
JACOBY Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: PGH PENNA Posts: 340	Maybe we should start taking to the streets like the other countries are doing. I always thought we should have another revolution here get rid of the clowns in office start sending the message that were tired of the crap. Sorry for the rant but I say whats on my mind. The people here have to wise up instead of just crying about the mess.

03-02-2011, 03:41 AM	#4
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	I suppose business subsidies can make sense to help new industries to get started (or in general making generally useful things happen which would not otherwise); supporting something well estabished doing good without seems plain strange.

03-02-2011, 06:34 AM	#5
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	If anyone wanted some proof that this 'budget crisis' is BS to try and force through a right-wing social agenda, there it is again. Tax cuts to the super rich, corporate subsidies to the super-rich, Big Oil subsidies to the super-rich... deregulation for the super-rich, defunding enforcement of what regulations are left... But, no, take it out of the teachers and bust unions and gut social services and infrastructure and anything that actually serves the common people paying for it. Cause 'the taxpayers can't afford' things that actually do some good. Shenannigans.

03-02-2011, 06:35 AM	#6
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	In Alberta speaking against oil subsidies can have you charged with both treason and heresy.

03-02-2011, 08:03 AM	#7
mikemike Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: New Orleans Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,053	Originally posted by larryinlc ex-Shell CEO John Hofmeister agrees saying “with high oil prices, such subsidies are not necessary.” This guy is an odd ball in the oil industry, he comes from a human resources background while most other oil execs come from engineering or science backgrounds and was never well respected as CEO of shell by the rest of the company. He has always been a sockpuppet for whoever is paying him and continues that tradition in his retirement. Now he is being paid as an alternative energy lobbyist. When oil was $150 a barrel and he was still CEO of shell, he was advocating for greater subsidies. He is correct that the subsidies are not needed with high oil prices, but they are needed with low oil prices, although with advances in electric cars, biodiesel, and cellulosic ethonal that might not be so... As to why they are needed at all (without any value judgement upon the industry), oil exploration and production often happens in the most remote places in the world, places without any infrastructure whatsoever. A big thing that the subsidies do is help companies pursue oppurtunities in these locations which means building new roads and innovating with new production methods. Just like Rx drugs the US is the proving ground for crazy ideas and these subsidies are part of the reason why. Eventually this kind of helps the economy because the new technology is developed here by american companies (like the drill that rescued the chilean miners), employs lots of workers at all skill levels, and provides us a strategic bit of energy independence in a worst case scenario where oil would have to be rationed for the civilian population. I think any subsidies for oil, coal, solar, wind, or electric cars distorts the energy markets and drives up demand for energy in our economy so we should cut back on or eliminate all of the subsidies.

03-02-2011, 10:19 AM	#8
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Originally posted by mikemike This guy is an odd ball in the oil industry, he comes from a human resources background while most other oil execs come from engineering or science backgrounds and was never well respected as CEO of shell by the rest of the company. He has always been a sockpuppet for whoever is paying him and continues that tradition in his retirement. Now he is being paid as an alternative energy lobbyist. When oil was $150 a barrel and he was still CEO of shell, he was advocating for greater subsidies. He is correct that the subsidies are not needed with high oil prices, but they are needed with low oil prices, although with advances in electric cars, biodiesel, and cellulosic ethonal that might not be so... As to why they are needed at all (without any value judgement upon the industry), oil exploration and production often happens in the most remote places in the world, places without any infrastructure whatsoever. A big thing that the subsidies do is help companies pursue oppurtunities in these locations which means building new roads and innovating with new production methods. Just like Rx drugs the US is the proving ground for crazy ideas and these subsidies are part of the reason why. Eventually this kind of helps the economy because the new technology is developed here by american companies (like the drill that rescued the chilean miners), employs lots of workers at all skill levels, and provides us a strategic bit of energy independence in a worst case scenario where oil would have to be rationed for the civilian population. I think any subsidies for oil, coal, solar, wind, or electric cars distorts the energy markets and drives up demand for energy in our economy so we should cut back on or eliminate all of the subsidies. Mike While I do not disagree with you on the whys of some of the subsidies. Building infrastruture in some of the places results in great environmental and social destruction or at least disruption as well the pursuit of oil that is perhaps best left where it is until better technologies come around. For the latter I am speaking about the rush to mine the oil at Fort Mac even though it is energy intense. It is not just in the US that there are subsidies and certainly not just in the US that advances in technology and skills advance. Considering that conservation is still the cheapest means of energy I really do wonder why it is fine to give money or tax breaks to big profitable corporations to disrupt the environment and yet spending the same amount of money directly to people to consume less energy is considered evil or socialism or anti free market )this is not addressed to your comments but just a general musing)? Almost all drilling has negative impacts on the environment and the people living in the area. There is often positive impacts as well but not always to the same peoples.

03-02-2011, 10:21 AM	#9
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Of all the things, according to the GOP, that we 'desperately can't afford to go into debt with,' ... they want to keep us paying for this? spit. They ain't hurting, those oil companies. Reality check, everyone.

03-02-2011, 10:30 AM	#10
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Welcome to the plutocracy..... Leave your brain at the door.........All guns allowed.

03-02-2011, 10:58 AM	#11
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by larryinlc I'll admit, I don't know how this works or why it's needed, but could someone explain to me why this passed? ............ Originally posted by shooz It's OK. They voted for it because they will get it all back in campaign contributions, lobbying kickbacks and perks...... Politico-economics lesson over for today. Any more questions?

03-02-2011, 11:06 AM	#12
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Well..........I have out figure out how to use M42 lenses on my K7........... A 135 3.5..............55 1.8.............55 2.0. Never tried this before and I have a friend coming over with an adapter.... and need to figure out the dreaded and mystical GREEN button! Sounds like fun, eh?

03-02-2011, 12:44 PM	#13
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by shooz Well..........I have out figure out how to use M42 lenses on my K7........... A 135 3.5..............55 1.8.............55 2.0. Never tried this before and I have a friend coming over with an adapter.... and need to figure out the dreaded and mystical GREEN button! Sounds like fun, eh? Hey! This is the P&R forum. We don't need to be listening to people drone on about photography stuff. Geez!

03-02-2011, 01:12 PM	#14
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by shooz Well..........I have out figure out how to use M42 lenses on my K7........... A 135 3.5..............55 1.8.............55 2.0. Never tried this before and I have a friend coming over with an adapter.... and need to figure out the dreaded and mystical GREEN button! Sounds like fun, eh? Well, that's the problem with planned obsolescence: if something actually works the first time, how do you generate demand for more? This is why the Genuine Adapter is a talisman of goodness. Industrial quality as it should be. Now uncripple the mount, boys. Then your lens lineup will look great.

03-02-2011, 06:55 PM	#15
shooz Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,491	Well..........getting pretty heated in here. Just to bore things out a bit............................ These guys are pretty sweet. Patina on the outside.........Flawless on the inside. Now I have to try and find a genuine pentax adapter. Now...back on track..... It's not called planned obsolescence anymore. it's Mean Time to Failure. Or MTF. Is that agumentative enough to avoid an infraction?