TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

President Obama's budget proposals

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by cpa, Feb 16, 2016.

  1. cpa

    cpa Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    Central Valley
    This just into the news room....

    The Journal of Accountancy says that the President has two budget proposals (among a host of others) concerning the oil, gas and fossil fuel industries.

    The first proposal is to eliminate $4,000,000,000 annually in subsidies to producers of oil and gas and other fossil fuels.

    The second is to assess a $10.25/bbl "oil tax." The estimate on this one is that it will raise $319,000,000,000 over ten years.

    You think that any form of these proposals have a snowball's chance in H-E-double hockey sticks of making it through Congress?
     
  2. flankspeed8

    flankspeed8 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Vermillion, MN
    Not a chance. One persons "subsidy" is another's "tax-cut." What are these explicit oil subsidies he proposes eliminating? The same accounting tools open to every other industry?

    Beside, I thought the $10 per barrel was not supposed to be a "tax", but a "fee".
     
  3. tomas

    tomas Traded in 9 rep bars for M3, used to be somebody!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,109
    Location:
    Chicago/Montecito
    Clever move. Hopefully someone will push this into the headlines with some details so it raises visibility that these subsidies exist. Opponents will have to deal publicly with the optics of supporting.
     
  4. Vince Cobelo

    Vince Cobelo Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    257
    Location:
    Palmetto, FL
    Obama's intent on the $10 per barrel tax was only rhetoric testing the bully pulpit for other environmental presidential decrees he wants to push forward. Ain't no way, no how, you can place a 30% tax on a domestically produced barrel of oil at today's prices. Why in the world would you do that and not procure foreign oil (yes it costs money to get it here). Oil is fungible. Doesn't matter where it comes from in the world market. And BTW if it weren't for the low cost of oil as it is today the U.S. economy would be in recession. It is definitely getting too low (deflationary pressures) but the market will correct that problem not the government.

    (On a side note: We don't buy Teslas to save money on gas. Some buy them to do right by the environment. Others like me do because we like owning the coolest stuff. Some both.)
     
  5. CSFTN

    CSFTN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    469
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    I am sorry, but you seem to be implying that the tax or fee is only on domestically produced oil. What would make you say that? Seems to me that it is intended to keep up the disincentive to buy massive SUVs by pushing the price of oil up, if only slightly. If that's the case, it should/would be on all crude oil (or distillates of such) sold in the USA.
     
  6. TheTalkingMule

    TheTalkingMule Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,271
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    This is just to draw attention to the level of subsidy received by oil & gas. I don't favor any new fees or even loss of subsidy for frackers in the short term. Their lingering existence has more positives than the cost. 2 years from now.....fine with me.
     
  7. flankspeed8

    flankspeed8 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Vermillion, MN
    Then if this is the case, do it the honest way by raising the federal gas tax, not by a money grab that would trickle through all facets of the economy.
     
  8. beeeerock

    beeeerock Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,372
    Location:
    Kamloops BC Canada
    Or considered another way... what could you build for that much money?? What would injecting that money into the economy, to pay real people to do real work, do for the future of the USA... compared to what it currently does going into shareholder's pockets?

    You have to admit, the possibilities are intriguing.

    CYVdYUhUsAIHbYm.jpg
     
  9. James Anders

    James Anders Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    745
    Location:
    Southampton, PA
    Using the opportunity of lower gas prices to add or increase taxes/fees hurts mostly the middle class and poor people.
     
  10. tomas

    tomas Traded in 9 rep bars for M3, used to be somebody!

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,109
    Location:
    Chicago/Montecito
    So much crap, worrying about how fees hurt whom and what economy - when what we are up against is the end of humanity as we know it - possibly within generations. Time to level the playing field between fossil and renewables is NOW. THEN let free enterprise take over and create the jobs and income from new sources. Why wouldn't some capitalist set up co-op wind farms to supply low cost energy to low/middle income people? Win-win for both. But won't happen while we artificially cheapen fossil fuels.

    The clock is ticking. The short sighted stuff about how fair payment for fossil fuels impacts economics and specific interests is the kind of politics that will doom us. I'm starting to think the only answer is a benevolent dictator! Not sure we can agree to agree to save ourselves.
     
  11. flankspeed8

    flankspeed8 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2014
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Vermillion, MN
    I wonder if this tax would apply to the millions of barrel's of oil that Obama wants to sell from the SPR? Buy high and sell low?
     
  12. RubberToe

    RubberToe Supporting the greater good

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    843
    Location:
    Pasadena, Ca
    Wow, someone actually thought it through! +1000

    Everyone is pretty much in total agreement, we have agreed to commit mass suicide on a global scale.

    It's just that not everyone is worrying about too much, cause it isn't going to happen the day after tomorrow. Whats the rush? :wink:

    RT
     

Share This Page