Posted by Tina
Once again it was during the debate that the President issued another statement that misleads:
“The oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare,” Obama said. “Now, does anybody think that ExxonMobil needs some extra money when they’re making money every time you go to the pump? Why wouldn’t we want to eliminate that?”
Hmmm…it does sound like what most Americans have come to believe about the oil companies after years of liberal and green spin. But information that is used to deceive or mislead is not helpful, or impressive, to voters who are attempting to choose the next president.
Ken Cohen, an ExxonMobile executive, took exception to the Presidents remarks writing on his blog following the debate…according to The Hill:
Cohen’s post in defense of the industry’s tax incentives calls the “corporate welfare” claim inaccurate, and argues in favor of the oil industry’s ability to claim a lucrative deduction, the so-called Section 199 deduction, on domestic manufacturing income.
Cohen noted it’s among the benefits available to “virtually all” manufacturers and producers, and that the deduction for oil producers is smaller than what’s available to other industries. The 2008 Wall Street bailout bill capped the industry’s deduction at a lower level.
“Keep in mind, too, that ExxonMobil’s U.S. tax expense amounts to more than $1 billion per month. In 2011, our total U.S. taxes of $12.3 billion exceeded our U.S. earnings by almost $3 billion, and our effective income tax rate in the U.S. was 31.4 percent — far higher than many critics have claimed,” Cohen writes.
Is it too much to ask that the president of the United States be truthful and armed with a complete picture when speaking to the American people? I don’t think so. It is particularly troubling that the President chose to single out one company especially in light of the fact that he has a history of picking winners and losers over his near four year reign as president.
It’s worth noting that when Obama took office gas was selling for $1.78. Obama’s policies have not helped Americans at the pump. Being less than truthful when speaking to the people about the lawful deductions that oil companies are given won’t help.
Tina, your rants are becoming completely laughable. Romney flat out lies continually and at best comes up with “half-plans” that have no basis in reality, and yet you relentlessly try to find fault where none exists. Cohen’s defense is that the same cuts are available to all industries, therefore there’s nothing wrong with taking another government approved “handout” when we are struggling to control our ballooning deficit? How much did Exxon’s CEO take home last year (hint: it was over $25 million)? And you fail to see anything wrong?
By the way, I’m not so thrilled with Obama either. Both major parties campaign spending has limited our choices down to 2 measley candidates. Every debate should feature ALL candidates running for office, and then perhaps we could get some straight answers, and less pomp and posture
Dubguy, I hear you and yours in not an uncommon complaint. Jack here, and I want to address a few of your points. Re the CEO salary, that’s actually kinda modest compared to some of these over-compensated pirates raiding the stockholders piggy bank legally every year. However, on the other hand this guy is conceivably paying a lot of taxes.
I worked it out based on CA taxes for income and property and the fed income tax and this guy could be paying around 10.75M if he just paid the top rates. Compare that to what the average taxpayer pays and you see this guy along with all the other millionaires are paying what it takes to keep this country afloat, deficits and all. I’m not defending the excessive profit taking by CEO’s, I have an issue with that too, I’m just saying we get a lot of their money in taxation.
Next, what lies did Romney tell? I know he has “evolved” his position on a few issues over the last decade or two, but could you be specific and tell us one lie we can check out for ourselves? That would be helpful.
This campaign finance thing is totally out of control and the money used to buy votes is as obscene as the legislation used to buy votes.
Question: Would you like to see Obama back in there for four more years?
Me either, so I am not inclined to be hard on Romney at this point. He’s our one and only hope of removing a socialists who is about to do us a lot of harm. If you didn’t like Obama phase 1 you sure won’t like phase II, this is where it gets really rough and he starts delivering on his real thoughts about America and our place in the world…IMHO.
DubGuy thanks for taking the time to express yourself on our blog. I’m glad if my rants, as you call them, give you reason to laugh.
You bring up a lot of interesting points. Lets talk about them one at a time.
You have accused Romney of lying “continuously”. Forgive me for saying so but that sounds like a bumper sticker. On what, specifically, do you base this blanket statement?
Next you write: “Cohen’s defense is that the same cuts are available to all industries…”
Is it a defense or was it intended to point out that only the oil industry is targeted for criticism and in particular the President chose to target Exxon/Mobil? It is, in my opinion, unconscionable that the President, elected to serve all of the people, is continuously targeting certain industry for derision and scorn. It bothers me that he tries to pick winners and losers. It should bother you.
“…therefore there’s nothing wrong with taking another government approved “handout” when we are struggling to control our ballooning deficit?”
I don’t think he said it was okay or not okay. He simply made the case for why it is absurd for the President to vilify his company given the government doesn’t mind taking obscene amounts of money every month from his company. I think he was attempting to give the public a full picture, the truth, about what the oil industry gets AND what it contributes! I think the oil industry has contributed a hell of a lot more to this country and individual lives than it has taken in tax deductions. (It is also politically devious to call a deduction a subsidy)
“How much did Exxon’s CEO take home last year (hint: it was over $25 million)? And you fail to see anything wrong?”
Frankly what the CEO takes home is irrelevant! CEO’s make the money they do because the boards that hire them are willing to pay it. We may think its excessive but it is none of our business (the money involved is private property) unless we are share holders. In that case shareholders can make a complaint to the board. But I will tell you this, CEO’s of big companies, like professional basketball players, get the big bucks because few people know how to do what they do and because their boards believes they have been good for their company overall. Their jobs are not glamorous (like sports figures) so they become easy targets for derision from people who have little knowledge of the facts. Some of them may not deserve what they get but that is just not our call.
We had better begin to respect private property in this country again if we expect to hold on to our own private property. The notion that what someone earns in a private negotiation is the peoples money to take is the stuff of dictatorships. We are not living in a collectivist society. We live in a country based on freedom backed by the rule of law. that means you have the ability to acquire wealth over your lifetime that cannot be taken from you…it is your property. If we decide its okay to take that from another simply because we don’t think he should be able to make so much, we surrender our own freedom and property rights.
Our debt problems result from poor decisions made by politicians over many decades. Some of the programs have become sacred cows that politicians don’t want to touch. The people have become dependent on them and its hard to give p something when you don’t know what the future brings. But there are better ways to do things and we have to begin to make reforms that will move us in a better direction.
I believe Mitt Romney is a good man. I believe his record of accomplishment and his personal record of charity and personally helping people is indicative of a man with integrity. Every time we vote we have to decide between tow less than perfect individuals who will fail us…it’s human nature to be flawed and it is a certainty that a certain amount of gridlock and infighting will run the Congress where laws are written and passed. Romney showed me in the last debate that he knows how to take command of a situation and lead. I have confidence that he will find a way to work with Congress. I am equally certain that I won’t like everything he does if elected.
“Both major parties campaign spending has limited our choices down to 2 measley candidates.”
Both major parties are major parties because the alternative parties cannot garner enough support to become a major party. Libertarians have been successful in moving and influencing the Republican Party in the last couple of elections. I think that is the best way, perhaps the only way, that minority parties can be effective. You lose because your ideas are not all popular with the people (The money for the major parties comes from their donations)
“Every debate should feature ALL candidates running for office, and then perhaps we could get some straight answers…”
What straight answers are you looking for? What I’ve noticed over thirty-forty years is that people do change their minds on issues…how would you influence either the Democrat or Republican Parties if you could?
The last four years have been pretty bad for average Americans. It’s time to select someone different as our President. Romney is the only choice…the only alternative choice who can get enough votes to get elected. It really is as simple as that.
“The 2008 Wall Street bailout bill capped the [oil] industry’s deduction at a lower level.”
And when we’ve irradicated it altogether, we’ll be getting somewhere. You’re not seeing the big picture, here. This wildly profitable industry is not holding up its end, tax-wise. Before we could afford it; now we can’t. They have to pay.
“I worked it out based on CA taxes for income and property and the fed income tax and this guy could be paying around 10.75M if he just paid the top rates. Compare that to what the average taxpayer pays and you see this guy along with all the other millionaires are paying what it takes to keep this country afloat, deficits and all.”
1) You need a new calculator. 2) He don’t live in California, do he? He lives in Texas! That is, he maintains a residence in Texas for tax purposes, but I imagine he spends most of his leisure time in cleaner, greener environs … like California.
Libby: “This wildly profitable industry is not holding up its end…”
You are cracked!
This one company (ExxonMobile) is paying more than a billion dollars a month in taxes to the government. They supply the energy to power our cars, boats, planes and other fun vehicles, they supply power to our factories and businesses, they supply the power that moves American goods from point A to point B, they supply the nation with around a million and a half jobs, and to you they are “not holding up their end”?
Like I said, cracked!
I went looking for some fun facts about Exxon … from ThinkProgress:
ExxonMobil Made $41.1 Billion In 2011, But Pays Estimated 17.6 Percent Tax Rate
By Rebecca Leber on Jan 31, 2012 at 11:15 am
ExxonMobil had the largest profits of the Big Five oil companies in 2011, raking in $41.1 billion for the year. This 35 percent jump from last year is driven in large part by record-high oil prices. Today, the oil giant announced its fourth quarter profits of $9.4 billion, a 2 percent increase since 2010. Here are a few other facts about ExxonMobil:
Exxons $41.1 billion in 2011 profit translates into nearly $5 million in profit every hour, or more than $1,300 every second. The annual profit comes near the record revenues of $46.23 billion in 2008.
Stock buybacks for Q4 were $5.4 billion, and $21.60 billion for the year, equivalent to 53 percent of total 2011 profit. This enriches executives, the board of directors, and largest shareholders.
Exxon pays a lower tax rate than the average American. Between 2008-2010, Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate, while the average American paid a higher rate of 20.4 percent.
The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax.
The oil giant uses offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to avoid paying taxes in the United States.
Exxon is sitting on $11 billion cash on hand as of September 30.
Exxon spent nearly $13 million on lobbying expenditures in 2011. The company gave nearly another $900,000 in federal campaign contributions. 92 percent of contributions went to Republicans.
Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson made $29 million in 2010 (according to the latest records): He made $2.2 million in salary, a $3.4 million bonus, and stock awards valued at $15.5 million.
Exxon is drawing out a legal battle for damages on a spill from 22 years ago. Exxon hasnt paid $92 million in cleanup for the devastating Valdez Alaskan oil spill. In its Sept. 30 court filing, Exxon argued the damages it agreed to pay only covers restoration and not additional clean-up.
Far from a job creator, ExxonMobil together with Chevron, Shell, and BP reduced their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees between 2005 and 2010.
And so, pretty much what it boils down to is: they ain’t holding up their end.
“This one company (ExxonMobile) is paying more than a billion dollars a month in taxes to the government. They supply the energy to power our cars, boats, planes and other fun vehicles, they supply power to our factories and businesses, they supply the power that moves American goods from point A to point B, they supply the nation with around a million and a half jobs, and to you they are “not holding up their end”?”
Tina, what you keep ignoring is that it’s a question of percentages. There is no excuse for ExxonMobil to pay a lower tax rate than the average American. How is that conducive to our economic health? How is that fiscally responsible or conservative? We cannot afford to give these corporations such massive subsidies. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney talks about cutting PBS, which is a drop in the bucket compared to this. His priorities are completely out of whack.
I don’t see how Obama’s statement about the oil industry’s $4 billion/yr tax break is even inaccurate, let alone a “whopper.” But he did make some inaccurate claims, as did Romney, as you can see here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/03/fact-checking-denver-presidential-debate/
I would say that Romney’s statement that the new healthcare law “put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they’re going to receive” qualifies as a whopper. As you know, the IPAB is expressly prohibited from making decisions about what treatments individuals can receive.
Good job Libby…NOW…please list the expenditures…list the amount they pay out in employee pay and benefits…list the amount they pay in fees, licensing, leases. List the amount they lose when locations DON’T deliver product….list the amount each year spent repairing and buying new equipment…lets not forget the amount they pay in insurances other than healthcare. A lot of that stuff is what this years profits get spent on…and the board of directors, executives, shareholders that profited did so because they worked and invested in the company. They took risk. They earned it by doing a job. They did not steal or extract this profit from anyone!
In short…it is not the governments money to take. They take quite a good chunk already or we wouldn’t be paying such high prices for the product…which, by the way, is supposed to be spent on roads and bridges. All that money and our roads and bridges are still a mess…so…the government is greedy and incompetent. They don’t deserve another damn dime…all they do is squander it away, buy votes, and make special deals (pick winners and losers)
Enough already!
Chris: “…what you keep ignoring is that it’s a question of percentages. There is no excuse for ExxonMobil to pay a lower tax rate than the average American.”
You just listed a bunch of reasons (not excuses) and then claim I am ignoring percentages. What is the percentage of jobs that the average American taxpayer provides compared to ExxonMobile? What is the comparative amount of fuel the average taxpayer supplies so that we can get where we need to go and products can be delivered? Can we compare companies in terms of “holding up their end” to the average taxpayer?
We have competitive tax rates for companies in order to spur and encourage production…to grow the economy and create jobs so that we can all be prosperous. What value should we place on that? It certainly does have a value in terms of holding up their end.
“We cannot afford to give these corporations such massive subsidies.”
You do realize it is not “our” money?
The deductions you are talking about are expenses…money the company must spend to bring the product to market. If we taxed them on gross sales we would kill the business and the jobs…how would that benefit anyone in America, including those who depend on government? Companies are willing to pay taxes they just would like a couple of considerations. Make the tax code simple. Keep regulations simple, the same for all, and easy to follow. Quit changing the law, the tax rates, the labor laws every five minutes…it makes doing business very difficult. In other words get out of the way and let us do what we are in business to do. And if you want a vibrant American economy you had better make sure we are not disadvantaged by layers of government busywork.
“Meanwhile, Mitt Romney talks about cutting PBS, which is a drop in the bucket compared to this. His priorities are completely out of whack.”
You weren’t listening. He talked about cutting loopholes, lowering tax rates and getting the economy moving. He talked about simplifying which would include cutting things that the government doesn’t need to be doing…he said everything would be on the table. He mentioned PBS because of the moderator’s association. PBS is a good example of something that could survive without government subsidy. Big bird is a multi-million dollar success…surely PBS could learn from Big Bird…or HBO…Or The History Channel! Treating the very prestigious PBS as if it were an adolescent child is just nuts!
“As you know, the IPAB is expressly prohibited from making decisions about what treatments individuals can receive.”
Yes. Isn’t that nice. However, the Secretary shall do whatever it takes (on the advice of the board) to keep the costs within a certain limited range…how do you suppose that will be accomplished? Magic?
Tina, it only takes two words to destroy your entire argument: Record. Profits.
Your whole idea that the government is standing in the way of corporate success, and that if we just let corporations make more money, they would hire more and revive our economy, is objectively false. Corporations are making more money than ever; that is just a fact. Despite their success, they are still not hiring in the numbers we need to have a vibrant economy. Those they do hire, they are not paying enough for a thriving middle class to exist.
Big business is doing fine. It is the working class and the poor who are suffering. Your solution is…cut programs for the poor and give more advantages to the rich. That is crazy! And it clearly doesn’t work.
Romney has claimed he will close loopholes, but when asked which ones he refuses to say. Given his secrecy about this and his own tax history, there is absolutely no reason to believe him on this issue. In fact, I would think you’d be against closing loopholes, since you believe that if the rich are allowed as many advantages as possible, then eventually the rest of us will benefit as well.
“Yes. Isn’t that nice. However, the Secretary shall do whatever it takes (on the advice of the board) to keep the costs within a certain limited range…how do you suppose that will be accomplished? Magic?”
I ask again: what do you get out of playing dumb? You are implying that there is no way to keep costs under control without cutting treatments. Do you really believe that?
Chris: “it only takes two words to destroy your entire argument: Record. Profits.”
“Destroy”…my how your ego does jump out.
The words “record profits” have been used to demean the oil companies for at least as long as Al Gore started clowning around all over the world with that ridiculous, fabricated warming movie.
Two more words for you: SO WHAT! Record profits is a subjective descriptor.
Let’s look at some of the facts surrounding the last quarters “record profits”:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/26/news/companies/exxon-profit/index.htm
Once again, the lefts argument is, as Libby put it, that they are, “not holding up their end.”
At a tax rate of 1% they would still be sending more revenue to the government, quarter by quarter, than any average citizen will in an entire lifetime. At the same time they are supplying much needed energy and very good paying jobs.
“Your whole idea that the government is standing in the way of corporate success, and that if we just let corporations make more money, they would hire more and revive our economy, is objectively false.”
I have not said government is standing in the way of corporate success. I have said that the government is imposing and threatening higher taxes, imposing complex new regulation, and targeting business for destruction, like it did with Gibson Guitars, coal companies, and Boeing. This causes a great deal of uncertainty about the future as does the fact that our government has printed money making it worth less, kept the economy stuck, and increased the size of government and the debt. Businesses with employees of 100 or less, which is most business in America are not comfortable or hopeful about the future. They have no incentive to risk taking on the risk of hiring or expanding their businesses.
Large corporations can survive and even profit by making adjustments (firing people, selling off a refining plant in Japan). Smaller businesses can’t do that as easily.
“Your solution is…cut programs for the poor and give more advantages to the rich. That is crazy! And it clearly doesn’t work.”
That is utter crap! It is pure democrat spin to demonize…you are a fool to buy into it.
My solution is cut taxes, particularly savings and investment taxes, and simplify the tax code and tighten and simplify regulations to encourage risk taking in the private sector. This will encourage business to grow and start hiring again and that will mean fewer people will NEED help from government. It will also mean that the economy will grow and MORE revenue will flow to government.
As for cutting programs, people who really need the government’s help will continue to have help from government. What should be cut first is the bloated bureaucracy…and waste. Giveaway programs would best be eliminated by eliminating the need for them. This would likely take an enormous effort over many decades to accomplish.
Changes having to do with cuts will be slow but we cannot survive, nor can those programs, if we don’t put Americans back to work.
“…when asked which ones he refuses to say. Given his secrecy about this and his own tax history, there is absolutely no reason to believe him on this issue.”
That’s up to you, believe him or don’t. The truth is he will, as he has said, propose closing loop holes. Unlike Mr. Cool who promises the moon for votes, Mitt Romney knows that he doesn’t have the power to deliver specifics…no President has. The specifics are worked out in Congress. He has indicated that he will press them for closing loopholes. He has a good record of negotiated agreements. He has a record, as governor, of working with both democrats and republicans. I have every confidence that his leadership will produce a better outcome in terms of taxes, jobs, and the economy than what we have experienced over the last three plus years.
“…what do you get out of playing dumb? You are implying that there is no way to keep costs under control without cutting treatments. Do you really believe that?”
You didn’t answer the question and you accuse me of playing dumb?
Answer the question! If not by cutting treatments or reimbursements for treatments (which will force cuts in treatments) how will the HHS keep costs down?