Roger Ebert......dead

[Van]

Call me crazy, but I think it's entirely possible that both sides here are correct: 1. There are far too many worthless turds in this country who feel permanently entitled to things they don't deserve, and our government is more than happy to pander to them by taking from the wealthy and middle class to give it to them. This is a drain on our economy. 2. There are far too many large companies making unnecessary record profits on necessary goods and services as a result of our government handing them sweetheart deals. Also, our government often engages in outright theft of its citizenry's hard-earned money. This is a drain on our economy.

[Carson]

What's crazy is giving money to the feds to do any of that with.

[LTS TRN 2]

Good job, Felix, in throttling the piss-ant little creep. Your argument precisely carves up the childish and bratty "Libertarianism" auto-chanted by these Hannity parrots. Of course we notice that 1-malt won't dare to respond, nor will the other worthless idiots (..?) dare to actually stand up . It's just disgusting how cowardly and fake these punks really are. And that goes for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConell especially.

[Felix]

Statements like this are why most of this board thinks you're a clueless fucktard.

(Sorry mv, I had to get that one in before you counter with actual facts again. Carry on.)

great comeback with some pretty heavy thinking and lots of insights we can apply to our daily lives....
wow, thanks for taking the time and putting some serious thought into your response.....

and which "facts" are these you speak of?

[Left Seater]

as for oil companies, nothing wrong with making a profit, but why are the citizens of this country forced to subsidize these oil companies and their record breaking profits?

Do you even know what those subsidies are? Or more likely are you just repeating talking points you heard somewhere?

Let's use the ultra left group Oil Change International's (OCI) definition of a subsidy:

a fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that (1)lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, (2)raises the price received by energy producers or (3)lowers the price paid by energy consumers.

Let's also use the Left's/Democrat's number of $4.5 Billion in annual subsidies to Big Oil.

One of the biggest annual subsidies is a tax deduction outlined in Sect 199 of the Tax Code. This tax deduction was the result of the 2004 American Job Creation Act. Besides manufacturing it also allows the deduction for food production, film making, software development, publishing, utilities (including wind and solar) and construction. CNN valued this deduction for oil companies at $1.7 Billion in 2010. Eliminating this deduction could cause more production to shift overseas, therefore sending jobs overseas. The exact reason this bill was passed, with votes from Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Tom Daschle and Russ Feingold.

The second largest tax break isn't actually for Big Oil directly, although they benefit from additional sales due to the tax rebates given to farmers. OCI estimates that about $950 Million annually goes uncollected in gas tax due to deductions farmers can take in their fuel usage. Farmers have argued successfully that since their equipment doesn't use roads they shouldn't have to pay the tax on the fuel they use in their farm equipment. Eliminate this and food costs rise tomorrow.

The next largest credit for Big Oil comes from foreign tax credits. This same credit is available to all companies in the US. CNN also estimates this as an $850 Million annual tax break.

OCI also points out that another very large oil subsidy is in fact a Democratic favorite, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP. OCI estimates this amounts to an annual subsidy to Big Oil in the amount of $580 Million.

Add all those number up and you are already over $4 Billion in annual subsidies. Which of those do you suggest we eliminate? If we eliminate the first or third from above do we just do it for Big Oil and leave the tax breaks in place for software companies and film makers? If so, how much will this increase our reliance on imported oil? Do we remove the break for farmers or the poor?

Finally, why are we so worked up about the profits of big oil but not other companies? If we look at profits as a percentage of revenue Big Oil isn't anywhere near the top. Just a quick look at cnn/money profits as a percentage of revenue reveals:

Microsoft 33.1%
Apple 23.9%
Coke 18.4%
Chase 17.1%
Ford 14.8%
Chevron 10.9%
Exxon 9.1%
Conoco 5.2%

So are you also against the estimated $2.5 Billion in annual subsidies to software and internet companies? What about the $1 Billion in annual subsidies to film makers?

Finally who is really profiting off of these record profits? The left will have us believe it is the "1%." However, according to Robert J. Shapiro, undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs under President Bill Clinton Big Oil is solidly middle class. His report finds industry executives hold only 1.5% of the publicly held shares. The rest are held by hard working Americans via their retirement accounts. 43% of big oil stock is held by mutual funds, 27% is held by institutional investors ie pension funds, and that 14% is owned in IRAs. So who is really going to suffer when we reduce their profits?