Thursday, May 12, 2011

"Big Oil” is about to get slapped; bloggers everywhere prepare for flame wars

I'm ready for the flames.
Before I go on, I just want to say that I absolutely fucking hate putting the adjective “big” in front of just about anything.  Big Oil, Big Government, Big Union; can we please just stop that?  Oh, and not to toot my own horn, but the last time I called for ending a meme, I noticed a marked decrease in its usage (some of you might remember that strikethrough made it on my top 15 of things that need to go away).

Anyway, lets get ready to rumble, because this issue will likely cause some fierce debate.  The Democrats want to end the tax breaks that the most successful oil companies have been getting for some time now.  They estimate that this will reduce the deficit by about $21 billion and, here’s the kicker: they don’t want to spend that money on anything new.  Obama is insisting that Congress spend the extra savings on alternative energy crap, but the Senate Democrats say they will not support a bill that spends the savings on anything.

How many groups are the Democrats wanting to piss off with just one bill?  The environmentalists, progressives, and various alternative energy cheerleaders will scream bloody murder that Congress is squandering a golden opportunity.  Although I am inclined to agree that the savings should not be spent on new shit, I think that this can’t be seen as a way to just ignore the fact that the shit the money will be spent on (the Big Three), will still be a black hole in which that money will disappear forever.

"Fuck your subsidies.  Seriously."
Pro-business people are going to shit a brick and for good reason.  Although it’s not going to deter oil companies from doing business with America or anything, we all know that they’re not going to just take the loss and say “oh well, it was good while it lasted.”  They will likely put the cost burden on us, the consumers, because the guys at the top have to maintain their billion dollar lifestyle.

I know, that wasn’t entirely fair.  There are people who work in the oil industry that aren’t billionaires, and we know that they will likely get shafted instead of the guys at the top taking a pay cut.  In the end, we will likely pay more at the pump for this.

Should that deter us from ending their tax breaks?  Probably not.  We’re getting screwed no matter which way you look at it.  On one hand, there’s $21 billion that could be saved at a time when we need to get a hold on our budget deficit, and on the other hand those fucks are just going to make us eat the cost.  Sure it’s their right to charge us whatever the hell they want for their goods, but that doesn’t mean they are not douchebags for it.

By this point I’m sure that my conservative readers are preparing to shit allover me, but hear me out.  We have to face the fact that we’re not going to solve the budget problem if we don’t raise taxes on those who can afford a tax hike.  I’m not talking about redistribution of wealth or anything insane like that, and not all tax hikes equate to that.  I am also not one of those fools who thinks that we don’t need to reform welfare.

It just seems retarded to me that a larger percentage of my paltry salary gets jacked.  I need that 30% more than Bill Gates needs that 20% of his income.  Plus, if we don’t want to make drastic cuts to defense spending then we need to get some more money coming in.  I’m all for block grants on Medicaid because I’ve seen it work; I’m all for reforming SS and welfare in general; but what I’m not for is making drastic cuts before seeing how much more money we could make first.

I’m sorry, but it seems absolutely retarded that we tell people, some of whom live paycheck to paycheck, that it’s time to tighten our belts, but then we say that rich people and corporations don’t need to do any tightening.  I’m pro-business, but I’m not pro-douchebaggery.

5 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

On removing the subsidies, I'm for the government doing that across the board, not just on oil companies. And you're right, they'll just pass the cost along to us.

On your tax comments, more taxation does not necessarily result in more revenue, and more revenue, for us sensible non-liberals is the goal (many liberals get pleasure from eating the rich), right?

I've read a lot of commentary that suggests tax revenue has stuck stubbornly around 18% of GDP. Raise taxes too high and rich people just move their money and operations somewhere else, put it in shelters, whatever. High taxation channels money into unproductive pursuits, goes the theory.

Jack Camwell said...

I'm inclined to agree Silver. I know that more taxation doesn't always get us more revenue, but I think if we responsibly increase taxes that we might see some results.

Maybe not raise them per se, but I think we definitely need to seriously consider ending the tax breaks.

I'm all for moderation.

LD Jackson said...

Let me see if I can explain how I feel about the debate over the tax breaks the oil companies are receiving.

First of all, the Democrats are doing a masterful job of framing the debate, in that they seemed to have convinced a lot of people that the tax breaks are subsidies. In fact, they are not subsidies and the tax breaks are those that are received by any other company that desires to apply them to their taxes.

Second, even though it isn't the most popular conservative position, I would be in favor of negotiating those tax breaks, but only if the negotiations apply to all companies, not just big oil. Those negotiations should be a part of an across the board effort to abolish our convuluted tax code and come up with something much simpler and fairer. If the Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else insist on taking aim at the oil companies specifically, then I am totally against it.

Jack Camwell said...

Larry I couldn't agree more. It wouldn't be fair to single out Oil.

My guess is, though, that many Democrats have other corporations that donate to their campaigns. I know they claim to be all altruistic, but their war chests don't come from a bunch of poor people with no money.

LD Jackson said...

You are right, Jack. Their money has to come from someone who actually has money. It may not be the oil companies, but I'll bet there are some big companies who do donate to the Democrats.