Why do the libs continue to harp on the Oil tax bill but not have a clue what it actually is and does?

Question

would also argue that every single barrel of domestically produced crude oil and every MCF of natural gas makes us less dependent on foreign sources. That is just one more barrel that we didn't have to import. That is another 50-plus dollars that we didn't send to some country that may hate us. It is another $6 an MCF of natural gas that didn't go somewhere else.

And so, why, for goodness sakes, would we want to intentionally inflict financial harm on the folks that are producing the crude oil and natural gas from domestic sources? It is counterproductive in the extreme.

And so when you talk about reducing our Nation's dependency over some period of time, since we recognize we are going to have to have crude oil and natural gas, then by reducing the domestic production of crude oil and natural gas, you have, in fact, increased the foreign source requirements of that crude oil and natural gas. And so that is what this bill does.

Let me talk a little bit about the specifics of what this bill does. Back under the Big Oil category, let me talk about what that did. That is simply a tax increase. Most businessmen and -women understand that taxes on businesses go up and they go down, they go up, they go down, so a 3 percent increase in the tax rate on businesses is not something that is going to destroy any single business, I wouldn't expect. But it is cash flow that would have otherwise gone into their business. And in this instance, their business is producing crude oil and natural gas.

Statistics show that the small producers who are impacted by this provision reinvest about, in 2005, reinvested 617 percent of their profits back in the ground. Let me make sure you understand that. If they made a dollar out of their businesses, they borrowed $5 and put $6 back in the ground.

Now I would give you the statistics from 1999 to 2005, but it is embarrassing. It is 898 percent. And so these are folks that take that money that they earn, taking the risks of drilling for oil and gas. And I am going to be joined here in a few minutes by a colleague who fed his family for a while owning a service company in the oil and gas business, taking the risks that are inherent with all the oil and gas exploration, all of the regulatory burden with trying to produce crude oil and natural gas and making money with it and turning that money back into additional activity.

That 617 percent provides additional jobs, because you spend that with drilling contractors; you spend it with service companies, some large and some small, some mom and pop organizations. In fact, my dad and mom owned an oil field service company for the last 25-plus years of my dad's career. They spent it with folks like him, who he also hired folks, and so that is how that system worked.

What section 102 does is to change a section of the code, section 199, which, back in 2003 when America was losing jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs, the Republican Congress in place at the time said, we need some way to incent manufacturing jobs because most manufacturing jobs have better benefits and better pay than service jobs, particularly entry-level service jobs.

Now, you know, lawyers and accountants and doctors and others are in service business and they make really good money. But the bulk of service jobs are such that they don't make as much money. But manufacturing jobs, by and large, really are important to this economy on a go-forward basis.

In fact, back in 2003, Speaker Pelosi said manufacturing jobs are the engines that run the economy. These are good jobs. They give working families high standards of living. So even our current Speaker agreed that to incent manufacturing jobs to stay in this country was an important thing to do. So that is what section 199 of the code was intended to do.

The net effect was to take the corporate tax rate which, on C corporations is 35 percent, and over its implementation time frame would lower that rate about 3 percent to somewhere between 32 and 33 percent, meaning that those manufacturing jobs would have that 3 percent taxes that instead of coming to the Federal Government and having the 435 of us spend it, the companies would spend that money themselves. And with respect to the oil and gas business, they would take that money and multiply it by, from 200 percent to 600 percent for the small companies with additional activity, additional jobs.

Now, by definition, oil and gas production was considered to be manufacturing under the definition that was put in place. Now, under the ending subsidies for Big Oil, every single oil company, the companies that produce the largest average daily production down to the smallest daily production, if they are a C corp, are impacted by this. So I guess by impact, we will have to assume, my colleagues on the other side's definition of Big Oil includes every oil company, just because that is how this impact will be. This impacts every single oil company that is in that business.

And again, I said taxes go up, taxes go down. But the net effect on this is that there is less money for these companies to spend in the oil business drilling, producing, completing all the things that go on to produce additional crude oil and natural gas which, again, as I said earlier, limits our need for imported crude oil and natural gas. Every single barrel is a barrel that we have not had to buy from somebody who really hates us.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:102:./temp/~r110ZnC6YU:e0:

Answer 1

Their positions are arrived at viscerally rather than logically. They see profit as somehow being evil. They are convinced that oil companies are evil & must be punished. That's just their worldview & they're sticking with it. Facts don't matter.

Answer 2

If they were putting money back in the industry there would not be the bottleneck at the refinery level creating artificially high gas prices.

How many billions in record profits have they gotten and not one new refinery since the 1970s?

Drill for new oil supplies all you want, unless you can process it at a rate that can keep up with demand, you have a bottleneck in place to restrict the supply while demand continues to grow.

This restriction in supply forces prices to rise yielding higher profits.

So no, they are not putting the money back into the industry, they are giving it to the shareholders as profit dividends that are higher because of this intentionally placed bottleneck.

This is no different than OPEC cutting production to restrict the supply in order to intentionally raise prices and increase profits.

So ultimately it is all about supply and demand, he who controls the supply can demand what ever price they want.

Answer 3

once lower back we see the republicans say they opt for what's ideal for operating classification human beings, basically to expose their authentic hues of the operating rich classification. yet Democrats aren't any more desirable declaring lets supply loose well-being care away tto the low income classification which pulls foodstuff stamps has HUD pay for his or her housing, pays their electric powered gas water and sewer at your new more desirable tax cost from the genuine center to low operating classification which has to pay for each thing themselves with larger taxation.. both are feeding u . s . of america a bunch of garbage really isn't it time for both one among those events to confirm the flexibility of the individuals? lets make u . s . of america once lower back the u . s . of america of the individuals for the individuals and through the individuals Vote third party

Answer 4

Of course, when the talk about a windfall profits tax or fee, they don't mention their greed and obsessive profits they get from oil

Answer 5

Good to see my ExxonMobile lobby is doing something useful with their time...

Now get back on Capital hill and pay off some new!

Answer 6

There you go not just with facts, but with logic as well. The neo-libs can't counter your arguement is all you use is facts and logic. Thats not very sporting of you.

Answer 7

boring...too long. I favor tax breaks for alternative fuel sources, and i oppose corporate welfare (as well as social welfare, except for the children) because i am conservative..

Answer 8

It is like everything else, they have no clue.