Republican-controlled House passes legislation

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman how much gain do you need to see exactly? What dollar amount would make you feel better about the Xl pipeline? How many jobs would make this a positive in your mind? is Canada an important trade partner and ally with the US?

[trappnman]

How about anything at all?

some jobs- somewhere between 100 as one side claims and "millions" according to house congressmen- will be created but no one can say with a straight face, that its going to be enough jobs to make an impact on anything- while it is a labor resource, it doesn't take 1000s of men to build the pipeline, and after its created, the permanent full time jobs will be small

taxes? sounds like we will lose tax revenues due to the bulk of the oil being refined in tax free refinerys.

more oil? sure- for the Koch brothers to sell overseas- now, the majority of this refined gas is sold in the US- after, only 40-50% will be sold here

cheaper gas? maybe for Europe- but its expected that gas prices at the pump will climb esp in the Midwest

[thorsmightyhammer]

It wouldn't take thousands of men and women to build this line from start to finish?

A billion in highway spending supposedly takes thousands to tens of thousands but ten billion pipeline wont.

My educated guess is that the pipeline construction companies would have 2500 plus workers not counting sub contractors.

And one thing I can guarantee is that not a one of those workers will be s49er and it won't effect my livelihood one iota.

Tc primary reason that much drilling is going on in ND is because it's almost all on private land and the mineral rights are privately owned.

If that oil was here in MN where the state owns most mineral rights the liberals wouldn't allow it.

If it's going to take ten years for Canada to produce enough oil to fill the line it's a good thing that transcend a started the process early.

It's no point in debating this anymore here. Let's just build a mall instead and create jobs that are low paying and keep the minions dependant on the goverment.

Randy the reason they care is because it's the kochs personally I think they are scum of the earth but no more than buffet

The liberals love buffet and they don't seem to care that hauling crude by trains have killed quite a few people.

I wonder if anyou rail cars pass over fragile water supplies

[thorsmightyhammer]

Tc look up Tom Steyer.

The liberal rail on Koch yet are fast to take money from this puke.

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman you drawing a line in the sand for political reasons I believe.

You state not enough jobs to warrant such? What if all small business got the same treatment? Why start a business that employes 50-100 people?

the facts are this pipeline almost 2,000 miles In length is not going to be done in any timely fashion with 200 people. Even if it where it fives 200 people employment making a good wage, next your tax defense is a thin one, taxes will be generated annually off of this pipeline that is 100 percent factual period no arguing that.

The fedral coffers might not get as much as you would like but state and local government will reap rewards if the pipeline lays in their area, again this is without debate.

You do not like the idea of smaller government making money unless the federal share is billions and billions?

Tman 50 percent of this pipelines "might" go overseas that isn't counting the other oil we receive from our neighbors to the north who are our largest supplier of fuel.

if Obama was 100 percent for it would you still be drawing a hard line? honest question.

[trappincoyotes39]

I am all for state and local governments making money and putting people to work.

[trappnman]

so anytime someone doesn't agree with you, then it must be political bias? I could give a rats arse what the president thinks, or what anyone things- but don't blow smoke up I disagree and tell me how wonderful this pipeline is going to be for the country- because , except for the ground shaking 2500 short term jobs, and I'll let steven tell me how many permanent

I'd be against any billionaire getting help from the govt for any project- but again, since no one could dare differ in honest opinion than you hold oh so close to your heart, its got to be something where you can call out the old liberal card aas if that proves anything but your own bias

so big whooping deal 2500 short term jobs- and rather than debate this with a lick of sense steven tells us "don't drive" "build malls"

and TC goes off on a small govt tangent and that has NOTHING to do with anything why not say you like rainbows and skittles, therefore....?

here's a good question- why hasn't Canada built a pipeline to their own coasts?

I always loves it when someone gives their opinion, and then concludes well, enough talking about it now (I have spoken!)

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman what wondering why the devils advocate on ozone thing that would produce job's. I understand it is a rich thing now, money talks always has and always will like it or not those with money have power in many ways and one of those ways is buying power, you float a cash pride deal over the risk assumed with financing the guy with cash in hand , more time than not can work a better deal.

They can also buy favors from our federal elected officials and do so on both sides of the isle.

Canada could I suppose go to a coast and build a refinery but they aren't cheap did you know in Texas alone there are 29 refineries in operation? I do not think all the providences combined have that number in Canada.

I mentioned small,government because they stand to make much need money from this pipeline, while it mat not fill the fed coffers with a lot of money for many of these smaller population states it will have a positive impact for their people, same with local governments. that is my only point.

You where worried about lost taxes on the refined product, I was pointing out that before it ever gets refined the states up along the pipeline will make taxation off the raw product...........

[trappnman]

actually Canada efforts to their coasts stalled because of envirmental concerns.

heres a good read- it matters not the source, follow the numbers

priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/keystone-xl-benefits-from-taxpayer-subsidies/

[trappincoyotes39]

The source does matter it is an anti oil source LOL.

if you look at their investment amount versus subsidies look at the large difference and when they invest into these refineries they are moving money through our economy by the billions I find that to be a good thing.

If source not maters here is an interesting take on what Canada might do and what long term effects it could have on US oil imports down the road, you see our friends to the north are already giving us a deal on our oil. Take a few minutes to read.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-08/keystone-be-darned-canada-finds-oil-route-around-obama.html

[trappnman]

so a couple of billionaire oil company CEOs are fighting about where to build their own pipeline in Canada? good- more power to them.

we export more oil than we import now- less Canadian, more American- again, matters not.

wanted to point out last month, we gained 321,000 jobs- and the UE rate did not change.

what effect will 2500 jobs have on the job market in real terms? very little

TC- why do you favor taxpayer subsidies to oil companies making billions in profits? Are they going to close up shop if we don't?

[trappincoyotes39]

Gained a 321,000 jobs means gained.

You may not care about the 2,000-2,500 jobs gained the people working and willing to work on such pipeline for above avg pay do care...........

Any effect is better than none at all as far as jobs go in this country, not just jobs areas like where I used to love would tax in money and add employees to cover all the workers in such areas, the motels, the resteraunts, the bars at night, the grocery stores and gas stations would all benefit as well, may seem minor to you, but to those folks it is added income as well.

Will They close up shop? I have no idea if they would or not, doubt it but they pump,billions in and get back a few million, maybe they pay less? maybe they cut benefits? maybe eh raise the price of oil? Lots of maybes, the politicians get money on both sides.

No different than towns cutting tax breaks to businesses to move their, no difference than people that buy with cash and get discounts those get passed onto others don't you think?

we have plenty of companies that have taken work overseas due to the cost of doing business in their own country the US. We can tax ourselves right put of things as well......

To think your ever going to stop the rich from getting a better deal? Won't happen sorry........

[trappnman]

oh come on TC- I said 2500 jobs was insignificant in the overall job market- not that I didn't care that people were working.

I'll repeat the question to allow you to get a definitive answer- Are you in favor of billions in oil subsides to companies making record billion dollar profits? If so, why?

[trappincoyotes39]

Here is your reason for such please read where all that 4 billion goes to. So we should all be for such.


If you were to survey people and ask the question “Should we subsidize oil companies?” — the overwhelming majority would undoubtedly respond “ No!” The idea that we are subsidizing oil companies generates outrage in many people, but in this article I will show why these subsidies aren’t going to go away any time soon. The reason may surprise you.

So let’s ask the question in a different way: “Should we allow oil companies to take a tax deduction also available to any U.S. manufacturer such as Apple or Microsoft?” A lot of people will still answer “ No” to that question, but certainly fewer than answered “No” to the original question.

Now ask the question “Should farmers be allowed a fuel tax exemption for the fuel they use on the farm?” In this case, some people are going to say “ No”, but farmers are going to be near unanimous in saying “Yes!” Let’s ask one final question: “Should we fund programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) that help low-income families with their heating bills?” The irony in this question is that some of the people who are the most vehemently opposed to fossil fuel subsidies will argue that this is an important program that helps keep poor people from freezing to death in winter, and thus it would be inhumane to eliminate it.

Yet unless you answered “ No” to all four questions you support programs that have been specifically identified as fossil fuel subsidies.

Environmental activist and author Bill McKibben recently wrote an article called Payola for the Most Profitable Corporations in History. In the article McKibben proposes “five rules of the road that should be applied to the fossil-fuel industry.” But even as he advocates getting rid of them, McKibben demonstrated that he doesn’t really understand the nature of these subsidies — and this sort of misunderstanding largely explains why they persist. McKibben himself indicates sympathy for subsidies when he wrote: “Many of those subsidies, however, take the form of cheap, subsidized gas in petro-states, often with impoverished populations — as in Nigeria, where popular protests forced the government to back down on a decision to cut such subsidies earlier this year.” However, he then incorrectly asserts “ In the U.S., though, they’re simply straightforward presents to rich companies, gifts from the 99% to the 1%.”

That’s just not true, and a failure to understand this is why we continue to be outraged over fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. (As an aside, characterizing the oil companies as “
the 1%” is also misleading, because oil companies are overwhelmingly owned by the 99%).

Oil Change International is an organization focused on exposing fossil fuel subsidies. On their site they have a page on fossil fuel subsidies, which they define as “any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.” They include a spreadsheet breaking down various fossil fuel subsidies utilizing data from a joint OECD-IEA report called Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Other Support. The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.

But look at the breakdown. The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.”

Oil Subsidies that Liberals Love

So why do we still have fossil fuel subsidies? Because almost nobody — not even Bill McKibben — wants to get rid of all of the programs that are classified as fossil fuel subsidies. I suspect McKibben would not advocate eliminating the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Two of the most outspoken Democratic opponents of oil subsidies have strongly defended this particular program — even though it is classified by the OECD as the 3rd largest petroleum subsidy. When Republicans tried to cut funding for the program, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the proposal an “extreme idea” that would “ set the country backwards.” Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass, states on his website that he is a “longtime Congressional champion of providing assistance to low-income families to heat and cool their homes.”

In fact, look at the reaction from Democrats when President Obama tried to reduce funding for the program. Rep. Markey’s office said: “If these cuts are real, it would be a very disappointing development for millions of families still struggling through a harsh winter.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., noted her opposition: “The President’s reported proposal to drastically slash LIHEAP funds by more than half would have a severe impact on many of New Hampshire’s most vulnerable citizens and I strongly oppose it.” Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., wrote a letter to President Obama that stated in part: “We simply cannot afford to cut LIHEAP funding during one of the most brutal winters in history. Families across Massachusetts, and the country, depend on these monies to heat their homes and survive the season.” Yet each one of these Democrats was defending a program that is lumped into that all-encompassing category of “oil subsidies.”

What is the Impact of Eliminating the Subsidy?

Of course many Democrats will complain that those aren’t the kinds of subsidies they are protesting. That’s not the point; the fact that some programs that are popular with Democrats are classified as oil subsidies is exactly why we will never be rid of oil subsidies. People don’t take the time to consider just what an oil subsidy actually is. If they did they might find that they are a beneficiary.

There are certainly other tax deductions that do more directly benefit the oil industry, just like every taxpayer has tax deductions that benefit them. Many taxpayers take advantage of a mortgage interest deduction, but I bet they don’t think they are collecting subsidies just because they sliced a small portion off of their tax bill with that deduction.

Last year CNN did a story where they put together their own list of the so-called oil subsidies, and in their list the “largest single tax break” — amounting to $1.7 billion per year for the oil industry — is a manufacturer’s tax deduction that is defined in Section 199 of the IRS code. This is a tax credit designed to keep manufacturing in the U.S., but it isn’t specific to oil companies. It is a tax credit enjoyed by highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple, and even foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S. Further, the deduction for oil companies is already limited. Apple is able to take a 9% manufacturer’s tax deduction, but ExxonMobil is only allowed to take a 6% deduction.


It is really irrelevant how profitable Apple might be. The argument that “they are rich and therefore don’t need it” doesn’t mean that elimination of the tax credit will therefore have no impact. If there is a compelling financial advantage for them to build a factory overseas they will do so. This tax credit provides incentive for them to keep manufacturing in the U.S.

[trappincoyotes39]

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them
Continued from page 1
Robert Rapier , Contributor
Comment Now Follow Comments

Likewise, ExxonMobil has access to oil fields and refineries in many foreign countries. If they are comparing projects here and abroad, that tax credit will factor into their decision. Whether it is enough to push them one way or another is something I don’t know. Many opponents of subsidies imagine that the impact will merely be taxpayer savings as ExxonMobil loses out on this tax credit. But what if the impact is that we lose domestic jobs as ExxonMobil shifts operations out of the U.S. (something that tax credit was designed to prevent)? What if the impact is that we continue to use just as much oil, but more of it now comes from overseas because we placed our domestic producers at a competitive disadvantage? To determine that there should be some independent analyses to examine the impact.

When to Subsidize?

I agree with the definition provided by Oil Change International; that a fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. I also agree that both oil production and consumption are subsidized in various ways. But these subsidies aren’t the cash payments to oil companies that many people imagine. If they were, they would be much easier to eliminate.

It is certainly acceptable to debate whether subsidies such at the manufacturer’s tax credit should be eliminated. But it is important to be informed as we discuss the issue. Anyone who discusses elimination of specific subsidies should know the answer to three questions: 1). What is the purpose of this subsidy?; 2). Is it working as intended?; and 3). What is the projected impact from eliminating it? For manufacturer’s tax credit, the intended purpose of course is to keep manufacturing in the U.S. Whether it has actually been worth the money is something that I can’t say without seeing a study on the impact of the tax credit.

The ideal use of a subsidy should be when we want to stimulate action that would not have otherwise been undertaken. Regardless of how profitable a company is, they are not going to intentionally make unprofitable business decisions unless an incentive such as a regulation or a subsidy is applied. If we subsidize an action that would have been undertaken in any case — business as usual — then that would not ordinarily be a good usage of tax dollars. Opponents and proponents are both apt to make unsubstantiated claims with respect to a subsidy’s impact, but they need to have some basis for their opinions. Otherwise we may relearn the lesson that some actions have undesirable consequences. If you simply take the position — “They don’t need these tax breaks“ — then don’t be surprised if they make decisions you didn’t expect them to make.


Conclusions

If we are to have a productive discussion of fossil fuel subsidies, it is important that participants understand what they are, their intended purpose, and the projected impact of removing them. Projecting the impact requires more than a guess. Because of misleading political rhetoric, people imagine these subsidies as cash payments to oil companies. But, many of these subsidies are not what people think they are. In many cases they are benefiting people who have nothing to do with the oil industry — yet the money spent on these programs is still tallied against the oil industry. The result is a great deal of anger over spending that often benefits the angry people. That is why it is so hard to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies; a majority of the population likely supports at least some of them without realizing that they are in fact subsidies. And until those who are loudly screaming that we must eliminate these subsidies actually take the time to understand what they are — as well as the impact of removing them — we can expect there will continue to be much heat and little light on this topic.

[bblwi]

Your argument regarding the 2000 plus or minus jobs may make some sense and maybe it is a project that should get to the level of states and let them decide or the land owners. However the real reality is that the economy is heating up rapidly and moving forward without the oil or the gas and oil prices are declining rapidly and maybe the investment will not pay off too well if oil is less than $80 per barrel. "Life is what is happening while making other plans" is a saying I like and this may be one of those cases. While a few want to spend a lot of time making a political statement about not building a pipeline the economy, UE and the nation and the world are moving on. There are fewer and fewer every day listening to constant bashing by those in favor of the pipeline. They are doing it by bashing Obama and the Libs when really a sound argument on the merits may work much better but up to this point there is a strong desire to make it political and emotional instead of factual. ND, SD, KS, NE and other Midwestern states are going to have a lot more to worry about with $4.00 corn, $9 beans and $5.00 wheat than what the pipeline can add.

Bryce

[trappnman]

I'll repeat the question to allow you to get a definitive answer- Are you in favor of billions in oil subsides to companies making record billion dollar profits?

forget the biased gobbly gook you just posted- yes or no?

[trappincoyotes39]

YES for the biased stuff you tell me worry not about the source but the information. facts are facts no matter correct? if one can dispute his numbers or references I am all ears and eyes.

Most Important paragraph of all the gobble guck

The ideal use of a subsidy should be when we want to stimulate action that would not have otherwise been undertaken. Regardless of how profitable a company is, they are not going to intentionally make unprofitable business decisions unless an incentive such as a regulation or a subsidy is applied. If we subsidize an action that would have been undertaken in any case — business as usual — then that would not ordinarily be a good usage of tax dollars. Opponents and proponents are both apt to make unsubstantiated claims with respect to a subsidy’s impact, but they need to have some basis for their opinions. Otherwise we may relearn the lesson that some actions have undesirable consequences. If you simply take the position — “They don’t need these tax breaks“ — then don’t be surprised if they make decisions you didn’t expect them to make.

[trappnman]

I'll repeat the question to allow you to get a definitive answer- Are you in favor of billions in oil subsides to companies making record billion dollar profits? If so, why?

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman refer to my post above yours Yes was my answer and for the reasons mentioned, close attention to the fact they will not make intentional unprofitable decisions, NO business would doesn't matter oil,cars,combines,traps etc.

I say strip All subsidies for any business making over 50 million per year sounds good?

Wonder what would happen to prices of such goods and services?

Wonder how many jobs would be lost in the US?