Tax cuts most certainly do count as a subsidy. They are one of the main types of subsidies government in the US does. But the main subsidy for oil in the US is that the oil companies don't have to pay much for the oil they drill. Oil drilling and production in the US is booming more than anywhere else in the world because of those subsidies. See, the oil belongs to the owners of the land. And any other land owner would charge far higher rates to take the oil than the US government does. The taxpayer losses the difference.
Keystone Pipeline
- Thread starter kochman
- Start date
Tax cuts most certainly do count as a subsidy. They are one of the main types of subsidies government in the US does. But the main subsidy for oil in the US is that the oil companies don't have to pay much for the oil they drill. Oil drilling and production in the US is booming more than anywhere else in the world because of those subsidies. See, the oil belongs to the owners of the land. And any other land owner would charge far higher rates to take the oil than the US government does. The taxpayer losses the difference.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I've supported the Keystone pipeline since I found out about it about a month ago. I think it's idiotic that Obama would oppose this, for a few reasons. First, he can't afford to be seen turning down a privately-funded project that would create probably a hundred thousand jobs. Secondly, the "won't vote for him because he passed a pro-petroleum (which is ostensibly anti-clean-energy) measure" is much smaller than the "won't vote for him because he blocked an enormous job-creating infrastructure project that will make us independent of Saudi oil" crowd, so his supposed defense of his base with this move is also a negative move. Thirdly, his excuse for the delay in decision-making on TransCanada's permit is retardedly pedestrian. Fourthly, the only reason he actually made a decision on it now is that the Republicans attached a rider to the bill that would definitively end the Payroll Tax Cut in February, the extension of which is easily the second stupidest thing I've ever heard, the first of which is the creation of the cut in the first place.
So overall, Obama's not doing very well in my book, between this and the detention bill. But then he's been on that path for a while now.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Also, a surprisingly accurate list of facts, straight from Fox of all places: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/six-reasons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Wow, very interesting. Thanks! May make me reconsider my position...
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Yeah. Trans-Canada's lobbyists know what they're doing.
A sensible article from Fox News? Color me surprised.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
No. A tax cut is a reduction in the penalty being paid.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Because it's the only thing possibly more harmful than a tax cut. The payroll tax is what pays into our Social Security system. With all the rage about how it's in danger of going insolvent, do you really think it's the best thing to reduce the money going into it more? This is on the same level as "cutting from Medicare to pay for Obamacare" stupid.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
I don't understand why.
Murky
Deity
If you don't care about the land in Canada you should at least care about the water in America. Many people depend on it for their way of life. If you impinge on the way of life here, we're going to raise hell.
Link to video.
Link to video.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
What about the gulf shores? Oil spill from a tanker?
How do you suggest we get the oil to the refineries? Magic?
Murky
Deity
We don't need to.
We should refuse to buy any oil from the Tar Sands.
edit: Further we should announce a condemnation for the Tar Sands development and ban it from crossing our borders.
Murky
Deity
I don't think you really understand the magnitude of the environmental impact of the tar sands.
wilycoyote
King
I don't think some here understand how insulting and arrogant it is to state that others peoples' opinions are not well informed, without providing actual evidence to support that point.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
I do... I'm not arguing there is no impact.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
As has been stated many times before, there are four issues with oil:
1.) Strategic access. Oil needs to be sourced locally so that we can avoid the strategic weakness and enviromental risks of transporting it physically half way across the world. This has nothing to do with the cost we pay for it, but the security of our particular portion of the supply.
As an added benefit, not having to worry so much about securing that supply gives us cost savings in other areas such as diplomatic relationships and military presence.
There is no rational arguement against either of these. Pipelines are immeasurable more controlable and enviromentally safer than tankers. Obviously a source from a friendly contigious military ally wiht most of the infrastructure being inside your own country is a boon to strategic security.
2.) Reducing oil usage altogether. This plays to both the security and the enviromental angle, as obviously you don't need to secure oil you don't use and oil you don't use can't hurt the enviroment.
3.) Pollution in general. The furthur away your physical supply comes from the higher the chance of enviromental disaster related to its movement. You can reduce this risk by reducing the oil you move, or limiting the amount or transport the oil you do use requires.
4.) Global Warming. The transport of oil actually uses up a lot of that oil, so local sources do help with this, but for the most part only squitching to alternatives helps this.
----
As I have stated many times before there is no portion of the above that does not fit into some portion of every maintsteam program. If you care less about the enviroment but do about the economy and security, 1-3 still work for you and will help to accomplish 4 tangentally. If you care less about security and are an eco nazi 2-4 appeal to you and will accomplish 1 tangentally.
Again there is no logical reason to not want this pipeline. Is it a pancea for jobs? Nope. Will it still create a lot and help a good deal? Yep. Will it help the enviroment? Yep, the dangers or transportation are clearly illustrated nearly every enviromental incident involving oil. Less transport by less complex means = less enviromental incidents.
As for those saying we are just feeding the addiction, this is a moot point. All else being equal as far as demad goes, local supply is still the better enviromental option over long distance sourced supply. Even if we cut our oil usage in half, the US would still consume the oil supplied by Canada and then some, so the switching to Canadian sourced oil to for the oil we still use in such a scenario is still the smart move.
And of course insinuations that we just switch to solar or wind instead of investing in our current power sources continue to be wishful thinking in the short term. You are basically just appealing to magic.
1.) Strategic access. Oil needs to be sourced locally so that we can avoid the strategic weakness and enviromental risks of transporting it physically half way across the world. This has nothing to do with the cost we pay for it, but the security of our particular portion of the supply.
As an added benefit, not having to worry so much about securing that supply gives us cost savings in other areas such as diplomatic relationships and military presence.
There is no rational arguement against either of these. Pipelines are immeasurable more controlable and enviromentally safer than tankers. Obviously a source from a friendly contigious military ally wiht most of the infrastructure being inside your own country is a boon to strategic security.
2.) Reducing oil usage altogether. This plays to both the security and the enviromental angle, as obviously you don't need to secure oil you don't use and oil you don't use can't hurt the enviroment.
3.) Pollution in general. The furthur away your physical supply comes from the higher the chance of enviromental disaster related to its movement. You can reduce this risk by reducing the oil you move, or limiting the amount or transport the oil you do use requires.
4.) Global Warming. The transport of oil actually uses up a lot of that oil, so local sources do help with this, but for the most part only squitching to alternatives helps this.
----
As I have stated many times before there is no portion of the above that does not fit into some portion of every maintsteam program. If you care less about the enviroment but do about the economy and security, 1-3 still work for you and will help to accomplish 4 tangentally. If you care less about security and are an eco nazi 2-4 appeal to you and will accomplish 1 tangentally.
Again there is no logical reason to not want this pipeline. Is it a pancea for jobs? Nope. Will it still create a lot and help a good deal? Yep. Will it help the enviroment? Yep, the dangers or transportation are clearly illustrated nearly every enviromental incident involving oil. Less transport by less complex means = less enviromental incidents.
As for those saying we are just feeding the addiction, this is a moot point. All else being equal as far as demad goes, local supply is still the better enviromental option over long distance sourced supply. Even if we cut our oil usage in half, the US would still consume the oil supplied by Canada and then some, so the switching to Canadian sourced oil to for the oil we still use in such a scenario is still the smart move.
And of course insinuations that we just switch to solar or wind instead of investing in our current power sources continue to be wishful thinking in the short term. You are basically just appealing to magic.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
More to the point, the pipeline was supposedly capable of moving as much oil as we import from Saudi Arabia, meaning we could tell the Saudis to shove it and still walk away even-handed supply-wise.
And this is an important point. The article HistoryBuff posted mentions that the existing part of the Trans-Canada pipeline has been leaky, but it never mentions how big, or how leaky an oil pipeline typically is, or how all of that compares to the net loss of seaborne oil between spills and fuel used to power the tankers.
The argument against this is that getting and using Tar Sands oil produces an incredible amount of pollution, much larger than traditional petroleum production and refinement. So the question is, do we want to encourage that type of sourcing at a time that we're supposed to be moving towards cleaner types of energy, including cleaner ways of producing and using oil products?
