I don't think the public would be demanding no subsides if the Oil companies profit was not so large 11 billion for one quarter at a time when the country is in a serious economic situation this is something the Oil companies brought on themselves ....

We should eliminate the tax breaks, but at the same time, lower corporate taxes. The U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates. These huge multinationals, including big oil, have teams of accountants that push sales and production into different countries to pay as little taxes as possible. If the U.S. lowered corporate taxes than that of Europe, we would actualy see an increase in corporate tax revenue, since the mutinationals would start funneling sales through the U.S. Corporations are the enemy, it is the tax code. Politicians love to increase or decrease taxes when the political atmosphere dictates the average politician does not realize there is more at play than simple supply and demand.

If corporations don't like the tax conditions in the US, leave. With the stipulation that they are no longer allowed to do business here. Let the free market work! I'm sure some American small business owner would jump at the chance to make and sell whatever widget the big guy was selling. If it costs 15% more, I think we could take the hit...for America, right?

Up for a wager, Cult? I'll bet you that if corporate taxes are reduced by fifty percent, end user prices will not decline by more than two percent. Just because we tax them less does not mean they will charge less for their product. This is true in all corporate enterprise ~ they simply see a reduced tax rate as a means to higher profits. There is absolutely no assurance that their prices will drop and there is absolutely no requirement that they do in order to benefit from the lower taxes. We are fantasizing a scenario that simply does not play to our expectations.

Big oil is NOT the enemy, however they do not deserve or need tax breaks. Gas WILL go up in price, but you know what? I don't see anyone driving less, whether they hate Big Oil or love them. So guess what? You want to drive? You pay for it, and you can afford it. Or....stop driving so much or get a smaller car.

The price of oil is not the 'Energy Trader's' fault either. I will say, however, that an industry that allows its product to be traded for profit does not deserve a tax break.

Put your money where your mouth is. You want to reduce the debt, and you are an oil company making record profits? Pay up. You aren't a religion, and you provide a for profit service everyone needs. We get it. We will pay.

Yeah, thats smart. Tell big companies who employ hundreds of thousands of people to leave if they don't like paying taxes. I'm sure you would then blame the lost jobs on Bush and the Republicans.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but nobody should be subsidized. If the industry can't support itself, let it die. If a point comes where it can sustain itself, it will be reborn. If I could, I would take away the grease money from the oil companies, from rail companies, from alternative energy companies, from the ethanol industry, etc. Let the chips fall where they may. All the government does when it subsidizes an industry is reduce choice by forcing people to go one way vs the way they might want to go.

Jim, no where did I say consumer prices would drop, I merely suggested that this would boost corporate tax revenue, which is the reason why congress wants to eliminate tax breaks, to increase tax revenue. If they wanted to drop the prices, eliminating the tax breaks would be the absolute worst thing they could do. At least with my suggestion, consumer prices would probably remain stable while increasing tax revenue.

From the article:

But Senate Democrats who are pressing to limit oil industry tax breaks don't buy that argument.

"The reality is it is the market that has increased production," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., referring to soaring oil prices that have driven the average pump price for gasoline to nearly $4 a gallon.

Doesn't anyone see the lie? The oil companies do NOT control world wide prices. Speculators do. The futures market does. The price per barrel is NOT controlled by the oil companies.

The democrats in congress are driving a public frenzy - a witch hunt - hangings in the public square. They have the American public convinced that the oil companies are the big bad wolf. Do they tell you that the US government receives almost 86 cents per gallon of gasoline, while the oil company only receives around 9 cents per gallon? What they don't tell you is that most of the profits made by oil companies are not made in gasoline production.

The democrats in congress are targeting big oil because they want more money to spend on their agenda. The billions they would receive by removing the tax incentives WILL effect the price at the pump. You may think Congress is being noble, but they are going to rob you again.

The simple fact is, the government is a huge money gobbling machine and they are making a point of going after the private sector companies that make large amounts of money. Why doesn't the goverment just take over big oil as Maxine Waters(d) said they would a couple of years ago... make us just like Venezuala. We know how Obama looks up to Hugo Chavez.

What I find funny is that it's said that tax breaks are in place to encourage big oil to do more domestic drilling...yet we have an administration that actively discourages any more domestic drilling. Rock and a hard place, anyone?

Here it comes....all the Big Oil supporters scared whitless they'll lose their vested interests and their investments.

If Big Oil pays no taxes or as near to "no" taxes as it gets, how does that NOT reduce federal revenues? Republicans will now show where their true allegiance lies. It will all be as predictable as we expect..."you get socked at the pump...you'll decrease US ability to compete...on and on and on with the most egregious greedheaded excuses when the single most reason is Big Oil has grown too big to fail and even more importantly, too rich to change.

But, change they will. In 2 of the worst recession years, these companies raised prices at the pump to record highs and then reported historically high profits. How much more of their BS excuses do we want to hear?

No one in 2011 has to buy a gas guzzler. Not when they can easily be traded in for a more fuel efficient or alternative energy vehicle. The same goes for home heating. There are enough alternatives today to stop the excuses. And, less painful ways to make the switch without going bankrupt.

Since the House holds sway over finances and the House is comprised of rich boy Republicans, don't expect them to admit that for every freebie they give Big Oil, they are decreasing federal tax revenues. You can't have it both ways... a totally tax free business community that uses more in infrastructure and government services and adds to the debt AND tax free businesses.

When their taxes are decreased, ours increase. Now, all we have to do is get Republicans to admit that and the problems of the huge deficit can be pared down. For every 11% in wealth the tax credits amass, that's 11% less in the federal kitty.

Ewent - It doesn't work that way. You are advocating that the GOVERNMENT take more money from the oil companies. Will you see any of it? Not at all! You won't see one benefit from them putting their hands into the profits. The oil companies WILL pass the tax increases on to the services they provide so, in fact, it will negatively benefit you.

You are buying into the lie that a company should be limited on how much profit they make. It's evidenced by your agreement that the oil companies make too much money. The whole purpose of a corporation is to make money for their shareholders, and nothing more.

If Congress isn't targeting the big 5, then tell me why they aren't going after Citgo, BP, or any other foreign oil company that sells their gasoline at the same market price...

If you have a pension, 401K or orther type retirement plan, it's likely you have some investments in oil companies. If they lose so do you twice. In your retirerment plans and at the pump where the costs are passed right back at you.

EXXON paid over $86 billion in taxes in 2010, $21.5 billion of which was income tax. THEY won't pay more taxes, YOU will. Do you really think they will leave gasoline prices the same and absorb the extra tax? How stupid!! Bill Gates wouldn't do that, nor JC Penney, nor Dell computer. Neither will the oil companies. You pass the expenses along to your customers. The left has so many idiots that they can't think about what the reality is. Also, just as the article says, oil company profits are only about 5.7% of the total revenue. It takes a LOT of money to drill, produce, refine, and market oil products that each and every one of us expect to have readily available at the drop of a hat.

actually not true at all 3rdparty, not true at all.

It's NOT the gas companies that control the cost of gas.....it's the speculators and the futures markets. We need to control speculation, but we also need to control the gas companies. With as much as they make in profits, they don't need to gouge the American taxpayers any more than they already do!!! They also ought to ban them from raising prices....perhaps put a cap on what they can charge.

US companies CAN make as much as they want to but should not get federal funding or tax breaks if they are THAT profitable. It's kind of like welfare mothers driving Cadillacs. That said, the oil companies have joined the republican agenda to bring this country to its knees. Gas prices have been the number one determining factor in driving down the economy. The fact that they post these kind of profits while the people suffer is un-American. If these whores continue to harm us I think the people and the government need to intervene. I myself think they should be tried for treason (along with Bush and Cheney) but that's just me.

Ewent, if equally distributed, we are talking about $400 million a year per company in tax breaks. That doesn't scratch the surface of the debt. What is your response to the part of the article that said as a %, oil companies are only marginally profitable compared to other industries? Similarly, as most people still have a hard time understanding, these companies don't control the price at the pump. Your argument is just a list of talking points that are easily refuted by commonly accepted facts among people with any real education on the matter. This is purely political, and a way for the Democrats to win some political currency capitalizing on the anger of high as prices and liberal hate of corporate America. Unfortunately, this will resonate with many Americans, whether rooted in fact on pure emotion.

BrianB...YES....It does work that way. Big Oil is full of lame ass excuses for why they have to pass on the costs to consumer. Okay...Here's one you need to explain then: The Exxon Valdez Spill was how many years ago? Exxon-Mobil has earned how much in profits since then? So why until 2007 didn't they pay a dime for the cost of that cleanup? I'll tell you why: Bush, the Big Oil Man, dumped half the cost of the cleanup on taxpayers. Check government records for proof of this. Why do we have to help Exxon-Mobil pay for ANY part of a cleanup we have ZERO responsibility for?

You doubt for a minute that another Republican president won't dump the cost of the BP spill on taxpayers too? You pollute on your property and see how fast you won't get anyone's help paying that kind of fine.

I am not buying into any lie. Corporations have grown far too large to be controllable. They'll come back down to earth only when people like you stop assuming there are no limits to the skankola corporations get away with.

Maybe in 2001, you believe that BS that corporation exist solely to make profit for shareholders...that's a gambler's mentality. Corporations exist to produce goods or services. If that's not why they are in business, it's time to shut them down. Enough with the paper corporations with their insatiable greed and lust for money.

If Exxon Mobil has had 2 years straight of obscene profits how dare you tell us we have to live lifetimes of austerity so they can live large?

3rdpartyadvocate
If you have a pension, 401K or orther type retirement plan, it's likely you have some investments in oil companies. If they lose so do you twice. In your retirerment plans and at the pump where the costs are passed right back at you.

First, the amount of oil company stock profits most people have in their retirement plan don't come near to the extra prices they pay at the pump.

Second, Income taxes don't reduce or increase 'taxable income". Income taxes are not a cost of producing a product or service. Income taxes come off after all revenue, production costs, and overhead costs. To say tax revenues will go up if taxes are reduced (because taxable income will increase) is just from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Third, prices are set by productions costs and suppy and demand (and not as you've been led to believe). Income taxes do not effect the price of a good or service. Higher income taxes will NOT be passed on to consumers just like a reduction in income taxes don't lower prices. Large companies have multiple divisions and consolidate them to compute their income taxes. That's how GM did not pay taxes. They had huge losses in their financing arm (GM credit) which offset profits in their automobile divisions.

Fourth, to say jobs will be lost by increasing taxes is just a red herring. Jobs will come as demand for products or services increase and the organization is reasonable assured the demand will last (there may be tax "incentives" used to move a company or produce a certain product, but the loss of that incentive will not prevent a company from still producing the product if a profit can be made - sometimes down the road) . The "tax tail" never wags the "economic dog". As long as something sells, there will be someone ready to produce it or provide it (until the tax rate goes to 100%)

ChiCity...Not true. If the tax breaks were removed from Big Oil, they'd still make a profit in the same ranges and the total would be $21 billion in federal tax revenues added. I know that because two experts on the oil industry stated so in several TV interviews. These are experts from their own industry saying this.

My cousin's husband once worked for Exxon in the early 1960's. Big Oil does control the prices at the pump. What else explains their making every excuse in the book to increase the price of oil? It was at $110/barrel a week ago. Now, it's at $90/barrel. Nothing has changed in Libya in a week, has it?

So I guess that was just another excuse Big Oil used because it also knew Mother's day is a hugely profitable weekend for travelers. Up went the prices. If you need proof, watch the Memorial Day Weekend, another sudden spike.

Crude oil is to a degree controlled by foreign refiners...but, take a look at the number of those refineries with American names on them and tell me who is buffaloing whom?

The only type of oil that we want from the Arabs is sweet crude because it's the best for making high octane petroleum.

When gas prices spike people won't even buy it anyways other than the military and airline industry. Which is fine because modern cars have variable timing which adjusts to detonation.

Not to mention, their excuse was they needed the tax breaks for exploration. When for the most part geologists know exactly where the shale deposits are. All the while the Chinese are buying up oil fields in Mexico and Canada.

At this point you really need to read between the lines and understand we're stupid, naive and have been taken advantage of.

Yet we were told tax breaks would help produce jobs - so where are they? Sorry, but the past seven-plus years has proven some of the arguments here, wrong...

Fortunately we have the Republicans looking out for us little people

( /sarcasm )

i agree. i believe in free enterprise, but without a conscience it is just 'greed.' the oil companies were doing just fine before these extra incentives and they'll do fine after. if such a small amount(in comparison to their overall profits) is going to make or break them and force them to raise prices(they really don't control that, but let's just say) then they need some serious help with their finances. but, we all know that isn't true. they know what they're doing. and this really isn't about whether our gas prices will go up or down. it's about our government trying to reduce the federal deficit. this is one avenue that will help bring in more money so we CAN reduce the federal deficit. someone else here asked this same question in a different way: why is it when the money is short and the deficit is high, the solution ALWAYS has to be start at the bottom with the people who can afford it the least, take away their incomes, their lifelines, their dignity and then work our way up? why, if it is in the best interest of free enterprise to have a populace that HAS the money to SPEND on products and thereby provide profit to companies, do we feel it is right and just and the moral thing to do to lower the spending power of the people? this is such backward thinking. it is possible for a company to make a decent profit while paying its employees wages they can actually live on. it's done all over the country. but, we don't hear about them because they aren't the problem. what we have to be careful of, is not hurting the small, moderate and large(not guargantuan) companies in this country while we are trying to bring in more revenue.

antoher thing the government should do is just enforce the tax laws we have. there was news report here in california about the richest people out here who just don't pay their taxes and apparently they're just getting away with it. i'm not talking corporations or businesses. i'm talking about wealthy individuals who seem to think they are better than the rest of us. one family out here owes the government something like 40$ million dollars. they've just never paid and they're still walking around free, living a life of opulence(they showed a picture of the house) and basically spitting on the rest of us. i guess they also have to money to pay people who matter off. now, the report only mentioned the top five people here in california. i've gotta wonder how many there are across the country and how much money that might add up to. i don't think we're going to find a pot of gold in one area that will bring our deficit down and bring in more revenue. rather, we need to fine tooth comb the government's spending, taxes, and services to weed out the overspending on all fronts.

we had a chance to radically overhaul healthcare in this country and we blew it, because rightwing radicals scared us into believing that single payer healthcare would lead to 'death panels' and 'killing granny.' so, we are left with being at the mercy of a healthcare mafia who takes protection money from each of everyone of us and then still lets us die if we become too expensive to keep alive. maybe, one day we will wake up and realize that each american helping to take care of every other american is not 'socialism or communism', but rather americanism and spiritulism. 'love thy neighbor as thyself.' who said that? we all spout our undying faith and what devout christians(and others) that we are, but the minute it comes to actually putting our faith to the test, we falter. we wouldn't need medicare, medicade, drug plans etc, if we had single payer. it might seem like you're paying more at first, until the first time you go to the doctor and don't get billed, or go to the pharmacy and don't get gouged.

let's face it, nothing is free. we don't want the government in our faces, but we sure want them to give us clean water, safe streets, clean air, roads, safe airports, trains, ports-the list could go on forever. and we want it for nothing. some say let the states provide all that. ok-and where will they get the money? if you buy a house or rent an apartment, it isn't free. when you go buy groceries they don't give them to you. as much as some people love hating the government, they do alot for you that you take for granted and it isn't free. and there will always be poor and uberrich. doesn't mean we can't spread some of the wealth around a lit bit more evenly.

Another FBI club member. They only lookout for themselves and friends and party, they do not give a Rats as- about you until re-election time. That for both Parties.

Congress vs. The Big Oil Companies.....what a dog and pony show.

The only probing going on will be the one shoved up our collective keesters.

There is no doubt what the federal government will do with this money if it gets its hands on it. SQUANDER IT!

Don't give them any of it. It is insane to increase taxes. Increase taxes and throw more people out of work and into unemployment. Increasing taxes on any industry results in fewer jobs.

Interesting, after the Dems took control of Congress in '06 during similar hearings held in the wake of all time record breaking profits the Big Oil big wigs testified that they hadn't asked of the Bush administration's new tax giveaway and went on to say they really didn't need it!

ewent

ChiCity...Not true. If the tax breaks were removed from Big Oil, they'd still make a profit in the same ranges and the total would be $21 billion in federal tax revenues added. I know that because two experts on the oil industry stated so in several TV interviews. These are experts from their own industry saying this.

You are correct. If the tax breaks were removed from Big Oil, they'd still make a profit in teh same ranges. But do you know what that means, to keep their profit in the same range, they would have to increase the cost of gas in order to cover the increast cost of the tax. It's pure and simple economics.

Try reading the link below to understand the simple economic principles of the effects of taxes and subsidies on the price of a good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repricing

And while this will increase revenues to the US Treasury, at the cost of the American consumer, if this is done, granting subsidies to other industries such as ethanol and wind production, will be a waste of money and will have a neutral effect on the U.S. deficit/debt, while at the same time, causing an increase in not only gasoline, but all consumer products.

I agree that these subsidies should not be given to the oil companies, but with gas prices as high as the already are, this will be and even greater shock to the American consumer's wallet.

Gas prices are not determined by taxes. Gas price is determined by consoumer demand. Gas is not going to go down in any way. We will see 8 dollar a gallon gas before 2012 election. Gas is WAY cheap compared to the rest of the world. In my opinion if gas went up it would help bring about the market readjustment we need...get us off this socialist bs we are on...and find the new level of salaries going forward.

Mark - Oil prices are partly set by consumer demand, the rest is controlled by speculators in the commodity market. The actual gas price we pay is set by the distributors, which includes the supplier cost, transportation (double whammy there) and demand.

America, in their dependency on oil, is in a "no win" predictament.

Until Americans can dictate to the oil companies, instead of the oil companies dictate to America, America is in BIG TROUBLE!

The demise of America continues

The left has America chasing a red herring with this whole "demonize the oil companies" thing. First of all, it was congress who granted the subsidies to the oil companies. Why blame the oil companies when congress should look in the mirror? Second, taking away tax brakes for the oil companies won't do a SINGLE THING to lower the cost of gas in the US. NOT A SINGLE THING. If anything, it will cause them to RAISE their prices in order to maintain margins, causing the price of gas to go up, not down. This is all just a deflection from the real issue, which is supply (or perceived supply).

This is so typical of the democrat left. The response to every problem is to find someone to demonize. Right out of "Rules for Radicals". What do we need to do to make the price of oil (and gas) drop? We need to send messages to the world that we are taking steps to increase our own production and not be as dependent on foreign oil. If the president and congress would authorize new drilling offshore in the US and on our own lands, the response in the markets would be almost immediate. Nothing would preclude us from also developing more alternative forms of energy as well, but these will be longer term things.

What we need is a president who is concerned about the welfare of the people, and not one that is just beholding to the radical special interests who helped elect him.

To all of you posters stating that the costs of eliminating the tax breaks will be passed on to the consumer...BS...if this is done properly and we REGULATE this industry in a concise manner (like we should have been doing for the last 50 years!!) oil would drop to < $50/barrel and gas would be a buck and half a gallon. I know too many commodities brokers that admit that EXXON and company are laughing at our extreme stupidity and gullibility. F#@K these thieves!!! They can kiss my middle class a$$! How do you spell extortion? "BIG OIL".

If I could, I would take away the grease money from the oil companies, from rail companies, from alternative energy companies, from the ethanol industry, etc.

I agree with the premise of taking away grease money from ANY profitable and developed industry, however, I do think it is appropriate to subsidize a developing technology which in the end does promote competition and industry that has strategic value to the country....quite a bit of military equipment is transported by rail or road, both subsidized somewhat by the government.

Net Profit - which is what you are reading is Gross Revenues minus all immediate expenses to generate those sales. It is the amount which foreign Governments use to determine tax amount. Foreign Taxes are currently 75% on oil companies. So, 11 Billion is reduced to $2.75 Billion - AKA Taxable income. Now, In IRS land they want 45% of this number for corporate tax - so $2.75 Billion becomes 1.5 Billion. We are not done yet. States, some cities, and other municipalities also share in the 2.75 Billion. That can easily translate to 11 Billion profit actually being around 1 Billion when everyone get's their piece.

So, if you see the uncut version of the Schumer - Oil Exec. exchange you will see the oil exec explain that his profits seems large, but the combination of foreign taxes, and all US taxes - they about break even. Think about it - they are breaking even on over 440 Billion in Gross Revenues. The Federal Deficit this year is 1.5 TRILLION!

The real question to ponder - Why did Schumer hush the guy up by demanding "yes" and "no" responses?

I do. If the public ever wakes up to how badly the governments are PLUNDERING our own industries, they would never get re-elected.

Hey, how about we don't allow oil companies to give contributions to crooked politicians, then they'd have so much profit they wouldn't need subsidies, what's wrong with that. How about we agree to lease to drill for oil IN AMERICA, and promise to issue drilling permits in exchange for subsidies, if there allowed to make living won't need subsidies. Many of you quote a lot of worthless numbers, which first you don't think about then those who argue just to see yourself heard even if you know nothing. First oil companies make 4-5 cents per gallon, what should they be allowed? Federal government taxes YOU 18 cents, what do they contribute to produce product? States take from 18 to 48 cents per gallon, what do they contribute. Now to see how terrible those large profits reported are, look at ownership of oil companies, can you tell me who gets that money? 99% of you can't. Oil companies are owned by investors, you, me every person in the world has right to own shares. Company management is required, (by law) and common sense they better make a return for investors, the more value, the more investors, the larger the assets the more profit required. I know we're thrilled with large numbers and large profits is dirty word to those not winning. If they are stealing let's punish them, if they're lying let's punish them, if they're paying taxes, making profit, providing product we all desire what should they expect?

If we're so fascinated with large numbers how about we put some pressure on washington, how do you like that $14 trillion debt, do you have any idea what that means? How do you like adding $2 trillion each year, is that big enough? Are you involved in REAL PROBLEMS? Some of us should be camped on the lawn at 1600 pennsylvania and in front of senate and congress, that's where we need to demand transparency, exposure, lying, stealing, bribery, where do we look for real problem?

America is not the only market out there. Eighty six cents of every dollar for oil is a tax. The democrats can do the committee, tax more and gas prices won't come down. It ain't cheap to get that oil, nor is it cheap to ship and refine said oil. The fact is that most oil is used to make petroleum products like plastics. American oil companies do follow environmental regulations, not so foreign oil companies. Note that the worst oil disaster in US history was a foreign company. So, lets let the foreign companies drill here, or wherever and force american companies out. Makes sense to me. As to where the money will go...it sure as heck won't get used to pay down the debt, just more money for pet projects to get congress members more campaign dollars.

After pondering the situation for awhile now I think the democrats should have everything they want. They can tax like crazy and spend like crazy. They want to hand out entitlements? Fine and dandy. Let them continue and I will become one of the people with my hand out. Why fight it? They want to take from the rich and give to the poor? Great. I want that stash too, why work or struggle when they want to take care of me? From now on the government is my source for all good things. When the money runs out....well, I'll look to them to fix it.

Oil and Financial industry executives are the biggest scumbags in this country. $120 billion plus in 2010 profits for oil industry and $65 + Billion in 2010 profits for the top ten financial firms in this country. They have so much cash stashed in the USA and abroad and do they need more tax breaks?

They have the balls to go to Congress and defend these subsidies and constantly complain that getting rid of these subsidies ($4.7 billion per year) will take away jobs and investments in this country. Studies have shown that that is untrue especially for an industry that is prospering from high commodity prices. What a crock!!

No wonder that these guys are so out of touch with the common man who is struggling every day to put food on the table, and he fears whether they would have a job tomorrow. Democrats should stand firm and as part of the deficit reduction negotiation, they should ensure the subsidies for oil industry, ethanol producers, and agriculture land owners are rescinded from the tax code.

Seems simple, rare equals expensive, he who controls it wins. Oil has been the new gold since greedy people pulled the last gas "shortage" now it is being used like gold to make a mountain range of money for those who control it. And we give our tax money to the people too. 87 million a day in taxes? Seems oil is making a lot of profits. Why are we tossing it back? Why are the reserves not being used today? Will we break the wallet of the few people that swim in money? They can't answer if education is more important than their dole?

Please stop handing money to people that could buy and sell Americas National debt in a decade or two. Put the billions into Americans ability to make a living, producing alternate energy options, so BIG oil can cry for real that they are going broke. Not that American debt and education is too hard to opine on when it comes to incentives.

A fair tax rate for all would be the only solution , however, profits and lobbyist will not allow that to happen if it will cut their profits. The oil tax breaks were not used as claims were made that they be used..it would be most interesting to see the comparisions for profits , real profits, not paper ones, for the oil companies and what they inturn spend for increasing their own oil production for themselves and this nation.

Two? We are in 3 wars now. Gotta love the "fair share" line. If only the 50% of Americans who don't pay any federal income tax would pay their "fair share." Everybody should be paying a share. Not just a select group of people/companies. Maybe that share needs to increase % wise for a company or an individual, but to say "fair share" completely ignores the 50% who pay "No Share."

Richard...I agree...that 50% who don't pay taxes are some of the richest Americans with the highest incomes. When does a guy in an apartment get to claim he's a farmer just because he sold 10 bails of hay? Property tax exemptions for the rich anyone?

Then, you got to factor in that anyone who earns $106,000 a year, pays relatively little into Social Security while the guy in the apartment is supposed to cover the 6-figure asses if they lose their jobs on Wall Street?

Or how about the millionaires who claim they "aren't rich". No....I guess when you aspire to billionaire status, you wouldn't call yourself "rich". Less than 1% of the population collects welfare...while 6% of the richest people in America pay no taxes. And, while Corporate America lives large on the barest of tax burdens, the rest of us play catch up to try and fill the federall coffers.

Fair share means if you use more infrastructure to operate your business than 1 million Americans, they shouldn't have to pay your bills for you. Fair share means if your business requires ten times the amount of government services than 1 million Americans, shut up and pay your fair share.

Fair share isn't dumping all of the taxes on the other 50% who earn 500 times less than Mr. Rich Pants with the million dollar CPA.

If all of these businesses paid their fair share in taxes, how can you possibly not see how much more would be gained in federal tax revenues? To ignore that 11% in 2005 who are now richer and not figure out that the 11% was reduced taxes and by association reduced federal revenues, is something only the hotchie kotchies of the right want.

If you can only get rich by dumping your tax burdens on everyone else, it's time to stop being American enablers of wealth protection.

Ewent says: If you can only get rich by dumping your tax burdens on everyone else, it's time to stop being American enablers of wealth protection.

How about those in the lower income brackets that pay zero taxes, or get tax credits (money for nothing)? How is it you can solely blame economic conditions on the rich while purposely ignoring the 50% of citizens in the lower brackets that pay nothing or receive credits back? Is it partial blindness? I'm just saying.

Don't they receive government services like national defense protection, or a representative in congress that gets paid (not by them)? Aren't the recipiants of the lower brackets protected by law enforcement, fire protection, and can't they use the roads, waterways and other forms of transportation that cost TAXPAYERS like me money to maintain?

Amazing how some people only see one side of an issue. Attack the rich... class warfare spurred on by the Democrats Playbook, chapter one, page 3.

ewent, I think it's important to distinguish between corporate income and personal income. Corportate profits either get re-invested or passed on to the shareholders as dividends. If you're upset that wealthy people do not pay their fair share of taxes, you are unhappy with the tax rates on personal income. Raising personal income tax rates on the wealthy will get more tax revenue from the corporate CEOs and shareholders without reducing the incentive for the corporation to invest in the US which creates jobs. Raising taxes on corporate profits will not get one dime more out of the CEOs because salary compensation is an expense that's taken out before profit is calculated.

Richard: And maybe some of that 50% who don't pay taxes don't have jobs or make enough to pay any taxes.....maybe they have valid deductions (much like businesses) that allow them to actually get a refund. It isn't EVERYONE who doesn't pay taxes....there are some people who have circumstances that preclude them from paying taxes!! It's actually the illegal aliens that most likely don't pay taxes....or those who are on welfare (and shouldn't be). Maybe we need to revamp the welfare program or start looking into fraud in the system?? That would be money well spent!

Didi, illegal aliens who are working are paying taxes every time they get a paycheck. They pay 6.2% into social securithy and 1.4% into medicare, and they will never be eligible to receive the benefits because they don't have a valid SS#. Also, a lot of those whom conservatives love to point out "don't pay taxes" also contribute to social security and medicare even though they may not make enough money to pay income tax. The claim is typical of conservatives: grossly exaggerated and designed to make the ignorant and the angry even more so.

brianb....The only people who don't pay taxes with lower incomes are those the IRS determines to be below the poverty levels. Who do you corporate rah rah Johnny Jump Ups think you are fooling?

Any American earning more than $21,000 a year pays more taxes than Warren Buffet.

In 2005, the GAO reported that 1% of Americans became 11% richer. I didn't say that...the government under Bush said that. You want to deny it? Your posts are sooooo typical of the little greedheaded generation that don't want to EARN a salary increase....they want it every year whether or not they deserve it. So, why wouldn't Biggie Piggies want fatter and fatter profits. Just how much higher should CEO salaries go? They are already 500 times more than the Average American salary?

Enough with this BS that more more more is better and bigger, bigger, bigger is best. In your view a person earning a lower salary is a demon who should be banished to hell because our mothers and fathers couldn't afford Ivy League schools that pushed out MBAs in the 70's, 80's and 90's assembly line style.

Keep in mind that there's no way you'll ever reinvent the salary histories of the retirees in this countrie. Get a clue. You won't reinvent the healthcare or retirement benefits their employers offered either. So why the hell should anyone on a lower income or below the poverty level pay the same amount of taxes that a Biggie Piggie who takes more out of the system and gets billions in profit?

Not even you can make that kind of justification. Stop demonizing people with salaries lower than your 6-figures. Enough with those Big Oil Big Daddies in those Houston Proper Mansions. If you can afford 5 gas guzzlers, a mansion and all that "oil" implies...you can pay your fair share and shut up already.

Marlen, what is their fare share? Contrary to conspiracy theories, they did not get us into a war.

Ewent, more tired talking points, void of reality or fact. The tax burden has not been dumped onto anyone. The top 1% of earners pay 38% of total income tax, top 5% pay total of 59%, and top 10% pay a total of 70%. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% pay a total of 2.7% of all taxes. So, if you think their fare share is any amount that allows the government to spend like drunken sailors, and still balance their books, you are right. I don't.

ChiCity, what percentage of taxes is paid by which class of taxpayers is a completely irrelevant talking point used by conservatives seeking to shift more of the tax burden from millionaires to the middle class and working poor.

Brianb, no one pays zero taxes. Income tax, federal income tax, is one of many avenues of revenue for the taxing entities. Everyone pays into the federal coffers, if not by income taxes, then on excise and other user taxes. In states such as Texas, the 5th most regressive tax state in the nation, the lowest earners pay the highest percentage (12.2%) of their income in taxes, while the upper 3% with an AVERAGE income of $1.8 million pay less than 3%. It's not what they pay as a share of total taxes, it's what that cost is as a share of their income. If I were fortunate enough to have that kind of income, I would not be adverse to paying a higher share. I would still end up with more than I need. Especially now with these financial conditions. A HUGE part of the deficit is the result of the trillions in tax reductions provided to the wealthy and corporations. And by the way, where are all the jobs that was supposed to generate?

The percentage for 2010 who paid no income tax was 45% of households. However, not all of them were households earning less than $50K.

And by the way, what's this got to do with the subsidies tax breaks for big oil?

ChiCity...Get a clue would you? If 1% of the population had their taxes reduced by 2005 and again in 2008 and again in 2010, that represents taxes they won't be paying? Stop with this deliberate misrepresentation.

You cannot possibly see tax credits as anything but what they really are: a reduction in taxes you pay. So, if you earn more, your taxes are reduced more.

That same top 1% whose wealth you are attempting to protect have ADVANTAGES, the rest of us don't...most of us aren't making profits in the hundred billions and then paying a million dollar CPA to cut our taxes down to 6% which is exactly what 48% of the wealthiest Americans do. Again...a loss in tax revenues.

Look at it this way. When you have bills to pay, do you look for money where it isn't? Or do you look for the money to pay your bills where the money exists? Duh. How dare you expect someone earning $50,000 a year to pay the same amount of taxes a Biggie Piggie like the CEO of Goldman Sachs?

You wealthheads are a riot. You all bitch about everyone else's "entitlement" and then refuse to part with all of those luxuries that you don't need and spend big bucks on. You can live in a 3-bedroom home with 1 1/2 baths and a smaller property. You don't need 2 or 3 cars. You don't need to live it up with 2 vacations a year. Or is that too much like humiliation for the Big Oil banditos to swallow?

Didi...Actually, the illegals who work for honest employers do pay taxes..I believe the figure in total they paid last year in taxes was more than $12 billion. The illegals who pay no taxes don't because their employers are dishonest greedheads who pay them in cash so they don't have to record that they are hired illegally and that's another pile of cash that decreases federal tax revenues.

bmerbob...Isn't that the truth, though? You work 4 or 5 decades of your life, pay into Social Security and then when you retire, it's taxed. How is that not double taxation? Your income was already taxed once. Why should retirees have their Social Security taxed again?

This is what rich asses don't ever admit. Meanwhile, we bail them out, pay off their fines and then get to "sacrifice" so they don't have to pay as much in taxes as we do.

Heck no, we will just print more money and put us deeper in debt.

keith...Heck no...All we have to do is increase tax revenues collected by the federal government. How about we take away all 3 tax credits? That ought to add up to tens of billions more in revenue. Then, get rid of all the tax loopholes and tax breaks...I figure at least another $21 billion or so. Hey, when you are broke, you take the money from where it exists. Not where it doesn't.

Everyone who lives in a free society should pay something for the privilege. No one with an income should pay nothing in taxes. To allow individuals to pay nothing or , in fact, to actually receive money, is to sow the seeds of our ultimate destruction.

Agree Gary.

If you do not work you do not eat.

The OIL COMPANIES largest user, the US MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!

Needles US "police engagements" are about oil!

Wake up America! Stop the US Military Industrial Complex and the US war machine - rebuild the infra structure of the US instead!

ewent, do you have any clue at all? You can actually make the claim that everyone making $21k pays more in taxes than Warren Buffet? A family of 4 making $21k pays around $2000 in Federal income taxes after deductions. Warren Buffet paid close to $49m in taxes last year. What you are confusing is that Warrent Buffet pays at an effective rate of around 17%-18% after deductions. A family of 4 making $21k pays at an effect rate of around 10% ( again after deductions ).

As for your claim that 6% of the rich pay no taxes at all, it's also ludicrous. There are less than 1% of the wealthy that pay no Federal tax because they are in tax free investments ( which by the way, everyone can buy ). Just look at your hero, Obama's, investments; the majority of his investments are in tax free shelters. Warren Buffet can scream all he wants about raising income taxes because the bulk of his money is taxed at capital gains and tax free accounts. If these hyprocrites want to pay more taxes, there's no law against paying more in taxes than is legally owed. I don't see Warren Buffet or Obama putting their money where their mouth is. They've got their bases covered in tax free accounts.

I do agree that big oil should not be given a tax break but what is going on is crazy. The politicians don't want to end the tax breaks for oil companies, they only want to end the tax breaks for 5 oil companies. Last I heard, the other oil companies are also making record profits too. And while we're at it, why not end all subsidies? Let's stop subsidies for ethanol, solar, wind, batteries, and "clean" coal? Why are these other energy sources more tax break worthy than any other? And while we're at it, why did we bail out Chrysler and GM? These guys were responsible for the biggest gas guzzlers on the road.

Who did the bailouts and QE2 benefit? It sure as hell wasn't the middle class. During Obama's watch, the rich got richer quicker than on Bush's watch. GE, which made $21B in profits paid $4 in taxes. Instead of having a hearing how 1 company alone reaped $5B in subsidies, we have a show about how 4 companies reaped $2B in subsidies combined. Oh what are they doing with Immelt, the CEO of GE? They're not grilling him, they gave him a cabinet position for having "good" business sense.

We don't count Obama's war as a war if we are a liberal. Only Bush's. Thus we have two wars, not three. (Oh, and which of the three did NOT involve Congress giving approval?!)

Ewent, first, who are you to tell me how to spend the money I earn? Second, you must look at taxes as a % of earnings. As for shifting the burden to the bottom 48%, we all know that isn't true becuase they don't pay any taxes. Do I have a CPA that gets my tax basis as low as possible? You bet I do, not to do so would be idiotic.

Simiarly, that $20 billion dollar number is spread over 10 years. So fine, eliminate the subsidy. Watch jobs go with it, and then you will have to find a new reason to complain, and a new group of "fat cats" to attack.

For the last time, speculators and the investment market control the price of gas, not oil companies (regardless of what your wife's, brother's, second cousin's wife told you- although I'm sure it is a very reliable source).

Reading all your comments Ewent, I see that you really don't have a grasp on the real problem- spending. We bring in tons of revenue, and there is absolutely no way to bring in enough revenue to continue to support the spending levels we are currently at- better then $125 billion a month. So you keep adding up $20 billion at a time over ten years, now just find several trillion more. Do you work in the White House budget office, that would actually make sense.

ChiCity the entire point of this article seems to go through your empty republican head. They want to end the tax subsidies to oil companies not just because it will help to reduce the deficit but also the fact the oil companies are very profitable and no longer need the subsidies and was even stated so back in 2005 that they did not ask for or need them but Bush sure did give it to them anyways.

BobtheClown your name fits you.. I want to see you live on 19k or even 21k a year when a large portion of that is going for gas just to get to and from work and then add in childcare and you end up putting nearly 75% of your monthly pay just for gas and childcare.. now try to pay your utilities, phone and other monthly maintenance cost.. God forbid there is an accident and you have to go to the hospital.. if you do your screwed.

As for this article.. ending tax subsidies will do jack @!$%# to prices.. they won't go up nor down because of it as Oil Companies do not set the prices. The only way we will see relief at the pump would be to remove oil from the stock market completely and let supply and demand set the price of oil.. You would almost see a $2.50 to $3.50 drop in the price per gallon of gasoline in less then a week or two. If oil is not traded on the market then speculators are taken out of the equation and they would need to find another line of sleezy work to make their money.

So fine, eliminate the subsidy. Watch jobs go with it, and then you will have to find a new reason to complain, and a new group of "fat cats" to attack.

and then......drum roll......

I see that you really don't have a grasp on the real problem- spending. We bring in tons of revenue, and there is absolutely no way to bring in enough revenue to continue to support the spending levels we are currently at- better then $125 billion a month. So you keep adding up $20 billion at a time over ten years, now just find several trillion more.

apparently you do agree that we spend to much but bring in enough revenue, and we need to make cuts, just not any cuts that affect you. I see, you're a "Karl Rove" patriot. Your threats about losing jobs are hollow and it's time for the country to call your ilk on them. Move to Somalia, drill there, see how that works out for you. I'm sure someone will have some oil to sell us until we ramp up on alternative solutions.

You don't like high gas prices, DON"T DRIVE, what's so difficult, ewent, get a better life, your jealous incoherent remarks are no longer even interesting to read, no matter how funny. Our government has NO duty to pay for babies, check childcare credits, just making babies. For generations families had children based on desire and ability to raise, why do the rest of us have to pay for the doggie factories? See where the majority of child credits go, minorities, unwed, single mothers, who have no value. Quit paying it will quit happening. How did that get there and why? Just making babies and expense done, no we pay for the unfamilied for most of their lives, look at welfare, prison, law enforcement, counseling, judges, think. Let's put values back in the government, in the country and take care of our part of the world.

The richest pay no taxes because they donate to orgs that feed the poor, the poor don't pay taxes because they make no money, and subsist on public assistance and the feed the poor orgs. Am I wrong here? I know there are scams to avoid paying too. Computers can be used to sniff out scams. But that takes concern and intrusion. Human nature, nurture, some will strive to work, others will only work to bleed the system, because it is there. Change has to start somewhere. Big oil cries as they point to the others. But they keep collecting like the poor as they get billions a quarter.

America has to stop the childish mentality of "spank them before you touch me" attitude and decide to make change to fix the economy. We are running out of time if the debt keeps spiraling up.

Shall we wither and die as we use every excuse to not make change? The rich will still be rich after some foreign nation forecloses on American debt.

Write the government, CC the rest of government too, the tax paying America can strike fear into our hired civil servants if we all speak a single thought, FIX IT!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!

Kevin, my empty republican head? The arrogance of lib democrats never ceases to amaze- I have a different point of view than you do, so I must be stupid. Forget the fact that my arguments are all well thought out, and completely rational. Also forget that this, "let's get big oil to pay their fair share, and they are the root of all evil" is a purely emotional argument.

Anyways, I fully understand the point of the article, and I said that eliminating the subsidies is fine with me, just be ready for the consequences. In all truth, maybe we won't see any change in the price, and no jobs will be cut- but is it worth finding out over what is really a small subsidy in the grand scheme of things?

How do you feel about farmer subsidies? Agricultural subsidies in 2009 added up to $181 billion. For those of you who use the $21 billion over ten years in oil subsidies, these agricultural subsidies total $1.8 trillion over the same period.

So Kevin, what should happen if you make $21k a year? The government should subsidize you? You should be exempt from paying taxes at all? What would be a nice enough figure for you to earn?

What are you going to do? End speculators in the U.S. from manipulating oil prices? Speculators aren't the only ones manipulating oil prices, OPEC does it too by production limits. And if the U.S. magically regulates the oil industry to stop speculators by making them take delivery of the oil, don't you think that people will speculate outside the U.S. and still drive up prices? What about the agriculture industry where the U.S. government limits the amount of corn and wheat produced by paying farmers not to farm? What about the goernment mandating ethanol as fuel which also drives prices up? Why are only the 5 big oil companies singled out?

Those are all valid points, and I'm sure you won't get a reasonable answer to them, just another nonsensical rambling about "fair share" and "corporate interests"... Responding with valid points to people whose minds are so closed off and convinced of their point of view based on pure emotion, does no good in this forum. Unfortunately, this forum which is meant to be a sounding board for ideas and debate is little more than a forum for uninformed hacks to regurgitate MSNBC, FOXNEWS, etc. talking points. It happens on both sides of the aisle.

JP...I always said Senator Menendez was a "Silent Warrior". He may be soft spoken, gracious and a classy guy, but he knows when to draw the line. Republicans bitch about big time spending and then hand off freebies left, right and center to the richest 1% and Corporate America.

They can't lie anymore about how all of those tax credits and tax breaks help the rest of us. They wouldn't dare try and spout that one again. Not when 8 million Americans were unemployed by 2008 under their watch.

Face facts. For every tax credit handed out so freely, that's less money going into federal revenues the rest of us have to make up for.

Menendez will not be returned by the people of NJ. They see him the same way North Carolina saw Elizabeth Dole - absent, and out of touch.

Close the loopholes for all of 'em!

Don't forget Obama's pet green energy projects: Ethanol, solar, and wind shouldn't get tax breaks either. Because if they (the green agenda items) still recieve breaks then wouldn't that be the Obama administration picking winners and losers? Oh yeah, I forgot, that already happened with those cruddy "green" mercury filled GE lightbulbs that are causing eyestrain, and those fabulous "green" toilets that don't flush.

For the life of me, I had a hard time voting in that poll. Because although I don't agree in giving tax breaks for oil companies, I dont think that their profits are the reason we shouldn't give them breaks. And I don't like how they are only attacking the oil/coal/natural gas industries while pushing the "green" crap.

Noney...tax breaks for more than 2 decades? That's a NO NO. Tax breaks for new start up companies for 24- to 36 months we can afford. This is your country. Why on earth would a country with a huge deficit year after year give freebies for decade upon decade and then allow perps who spill oil and destroy jobs and our environment get off scott free from their part of their fines?

Forcing taxpayers to pay their fines is like handing our traffic tickets to people who don't drive a car.

So generally, it's a good idea to give tax breaks for new technologies because investors are usually risk averse. That means they're unwilling to put a significant amount of money into a new technology because they don't know if it will be profitable. Also, they prefer returns in a 5 year or less time span. Their share holders don't really want to wait 20 years or more for returns on investments. The returns could well be delayed by 50 years if the research is into the pure sciences. Here's a good example.

The internet. One of the most important inventions in the past 100 years (granted calling it a single invention glosses over all of the contributions from many sources but I really don't feel like listing all of the protocols created and their inventors by name...).

DARPA, a government funded agency created after the launch of Sputnik to regain the technological lead against the USSR, basically started the idea of networking radar systems together.

DARPA... government funded.

Later on, other networks were created by various government funded establishments were merged together to form the internet.

Let's go through some of them.

ARPANET created by DARPA, government funded

NPL created by the National Physics Laboratory in the UK, lots of government funding.

The Merit Network. University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Wayne state university, and Michigan State University. Primarily funded through the state of Michigan and the National Science Foundation. Government funding.

Notice how each of these networks as well as the groups that merged them required government funding.

Commerce wasn't even open to this networking setup until the late 1980s.

.

.

Now, imagine a world without the internet. Imagine how your lives would be different. Without government funding, you wouldn't have anything even close to it because it was a project that spanned over 3 decades before it was even semi-profitable. You're not getting companies to pay for that seeing as the whole thing could have been a bust.

There are many other examples of this. Anything coming from NASA is a perfect example.

Now, for technologies that are already established... Government funding doesn't help spurn new technologies in these fields because they're already profitable. Private companies will work towards efficiency standards because it directly effects their 5 year profit margin. Tax breaks for companies in areas that have been established for a decade or more are a waste because the companies are not going to disappear due to unpredictability of their profit margins. When you compare this to a new technology the possibility of failure causes investors to shy away from them towards more established technologies. With the tax break/incentives, you shift the investors towards the new technologies by removing some of the risk for the investors.

GE was one of the players getting Government to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. They have heavily invested in the curly fry bulbs (CFL - could also be labeled curly fry lights). Then they moved all production to China - the bulbs require 2x the labor and the labor is much less in China.

Face it, America expects to get more. We are 50 States that are a rock solid nation, until recently. How many American cities are tin shacks and poverty stricken people, until recently? America let go of the government because we thought human nature was going to keep politicians honest. Time for America to tell our civil servants to stop stalling the change with debates and start changing the game. Bickering about who gets spanked first is killing us. There is more than enough government for Americans to watch over as they all work to make America solvant. Fund alternate energy instead of fat cats. What the rich donate to charities is not equal what America will need to stay alive once 90 % of people are out of work and minimum waged.

Until America demands change in great numbers, this blogging will be a false sense of security because people will keep sitting back, thinking others are taking care of them.

Ewent, let me ask you a question. I know this is a little off topic, but it seems relevant in light of your comment here. Most states are running huge deficits, with a large component trying to pay for unfunded pensions. When the pensions were agreed to and passed, our tax dollars were supposed to be used set aside to fund the pensions, in Illinois at a minimum of 80%. Today, we are far short of that funding level. So, the governor is saying we need to borrow, raise taxes, and increase revenue to cover these obligations. Essentially, aren't we paying twice for the same pensions? Is your solution to this problem the same- raise revenues? Now before you say this is disingenuous as Republicans don't care about spending, remember that Illinois has been run exclusively by Democratics for the last 20+ years. The point is, spending is out of control, and it can't be solved simply by raising revenue on the back of the wealthy, as this helps remedy a symptom not the disease.

Michael L....Corporations are sitting at the precipice of a huge fall. You know what happens when something, anything grows so large, it's no longer controllable. Wouldn't you agree that's what's happening in Corporate America? They are, for want of a better way to put this, riding for a huge huge huge fall.

The reason is as simple as it gets: Too Big To Fail, Too Rich To Change. If you thought that 2008 Financial Meltdown was bad, wait until the "it" hits the fan with Corporate America. They just never ever learn that everything has limits. They stupidly keep pushing the envelope with their win win, dangle the carrot nonsense and don't think their greedy aspirations have consequences. And why not? We bailed them out 2 times already. Strike three and they are OUT.

Who is telling our civil servants this? I'm glad we all know the causes as we hemorrhage the Nation to death with apathy. Time for Obama to listen and answer to us, the US!

If they produced at 100%, they'd flood the market and drop the price of oil like a rock. Not to mention they'd deplete resources and shut down future revenues and profits.

This is why drilling here and drilling now won't make any difference, if we increase supply then OPEC will decrease their supply and we will be in the same place with the same numbers. We need oil; the demand is inelastic, good economy...bad economy we depend on the oil. The only solution is to Nationalize oil!!! There are certain commodities that we depend on... no company should control these and gouge the american consumers, all the while holding our government hostage.....CORPORATE TERRORISM

In 2010, the reduction in oil in the US was at 11%. People are not buying gas guzzlers and they are learning that they can make the switch far more easily to alternative energy.

I agree the oil companies are making a huge profit in in over-all dollars, but a 6% profit is not that much. Most companies try for a 10 to 15 %. If you really want to know who is making a profit of of gas, just look at the pumps when you fill up your car. The federal and state governments are bringing in huge amounts of money from gas sales. Kinda makes you wonder where all of that money is going.

Paying civil servants by the merit of the work they do? That will take decades. It was suggested many times, just like the notion that the rich actually pay taxes too. When will Capitol Hill do these things? Once America stops telling each other? Good luck.

Why didn't the Bush Administration have the guts to stare down the banksters, if he would have done his job, we wouldn't be in the downfall in America we are. It was on Bush's watch wallstreet crooks, big banks and the housing scam market crashed America. Bush sat idle and let it happen.

Snorris and where was your boy barney frank? Also Obama is the president now and he has done nothing constructive to help this problem.

Such as?

Republicans filibustered the regulation bill...

snorris

Why didn't the Bush Administration have the guts to stare down the banksters, if he would have done his job, we wouldn't be in the downfall in America we are. It was on Bush's watch wallstreet crooks, big banks and the housing scam market crashed America. Bush sat idle and let it happen.

John Mc Cain quite LOUDLY called for investiagations into the housing / finances mess.

Bush also called for investigations and Greenspan also warned.

I guess the liberal state run media decided for you that none of this was news you needed to hear so this is problably why you believe what you do and are not armed with the facts.

Let me help you learn the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

ssmike...We are still paying off those S&Ls we bailed out when Bush 41 was president. I guess you think it was just a coincidence that Neil Bush, GWB's little brother's bank was among those bailed out?

Hey pin head Have you noticed who wall street donates to? And who the richest politicians are. Ever hear of John Kerry? Try doing some reading. It will help ease your ignorance!

Nice job if insulting the writer. Real class act, ssmike. Real class. Wonder why you folks can't disagree with civility and a little class and leave the name calling aand insluts out. Disgraceful, but then that's the way this country has gone. Classless.

Smells like its time for a revolution. Too many things going wrong and no one in power seems to give a dammed about it enough to help make things right. If you ask me, many of these folk in politics are there for their own gain, not to help the people. Greed will be the death of America, no question about it.

Revolution time huh? Robocop bad guy time? GUNS GUNS GUNS!!!!!! Simple fact is we tax paying Americans have no way to keep the civil servants we vote in, in check. The storefront accountant you may hire to tend your retirement gets more scutiny than your Senator. Face it, the revolution America needs is a politician that will listen to Americans. We pay them, but rich special interests feed them the caviar. Who the hell can you blame for that, other than American apathy? Watch the watchers. Nobody is a saint.

Common Man, my sentiments exactly. Noone seems to care about what the consequences of changing the tax structure might be. If we make exploration and production in the US more expensive, oil companies will explore elsewhere and US workers will lose jobs and we'll import more oil to make up the difference.

If we're pissed off about how much money rich people make, why not just increase taxes on personal income of the wealthy, including the CEOs of the oil companies?

We should not change our tax policies in a way that chases business and jobs out of the country.

I know, right? Gas is expensive and our country is losing business. So here's an idea; increase the expenses of American oil companies! <facepalm>

This article's question is phrased incorrectly, seeing as Big Oil is already receiving tax breaks. The question should be "Should we increase taxes on the oil industry?" And this is the kind of question that should have come up when gas was cheaper, not now. The whole thing puts me in the mind buying during the ups and selling during the downs on the stock market; the exact opposite of what one should do.

Common Man...I know what subsidies are...We in NJ have a Republican Rich Pants Governor who just handed a $221 million subsidy to a corporation to build yet another North Jersey super mall. NJ is millions in debt and the only thing this lunatic governor comes up with is to hand $221 in NJ state subsidies to a Canadian corporation. Good Show Christie...Now who is supposed to trek up to North Jersey to buy their Fruit of the Looms? How will the 9% in NJ who are jobless afford to shop there? And we wonder why NJ has the highest property taxes in the nation?

Keep handing out those subsidies...no taxes paid ...so "someone" has to pay them to keep Governor Rich Pants in moolah and bennies. You got to hand it to Republicans, they just keep up that foolish ideology that Big Business never has ANY downsides...I guess not when we, the taxpayers, always bail them out.

YES Finaly a sound mind..................

If you don't like outsourcing, tariff the products. Republicans destroyed the economy along with southern dems when they pushed Free Trade. So these same people are saying we need reduce corporate taxes to 0, wait no we need to pay corporations Federal money just so they stay, so corporations don't outsource.

No, Republicans rigged the game for corporations, when they installed Free Trade in the governments mind. So masterminds behind the scenes thought, how do I make billions while screwing the masses, and at the same time force governments to pay our taxes for us and gain more Federal money. I know Free Trade Agreements.

Lol, you people are priceless, your the first people in my little black book who doesn't make in to heaven.

NJ wasn't alway run by Republicans, it was mostly run by Democrats and NJ still had one of the highest property taxes. It really doesn't matter who's in charge, both Republicans and Democrats both know how to spend other people's money. You seem to think that the Democrats have your best interest in mind but they are no different than the "richie pants" Republicans. Just look at how much debt NJ has, it is almost as bad as California if you count the hidden pension obligations that NJ has.

We don't need any more f**cking oil dammit, much less to be drilling for that crap in our back yard, and even less than that, having other countries drilling in our back yard for it.

Maybe we should subsidize Tesla Motor Corp.

No more f**cking oil!

We are subsidizing Tesla Motor Corp

Oh, and you do know that without oil, the Tesla can't be built since alot of the parts are made from oil by products.

Lol, The politicians are voted in and left to fail us, on every level. We will have the pleasure of whining and opining on all governmental levels until America, each of the States, and every city takes back the need to assess what politicians do. We are giving America to the rich by ignoring our duty to keep civil servants in control. I can see this topic won't be making any strides in solutions to the problems. Figure out how to make change if you can. I write my Reps.

Ewent, if the flip side is this doesn't get built, is that better for your state? Do you not recognize that this mall will create jobs, income taxes, sales taxes... Without that incentive, this project probably doesn't get done.

We are giving America to the rich by ignoring our duty to keep civil servants in control.

I agree that this is happening, but not how many people imagine. Almost half of eligible voters in this country do not pay taxes. We'll soon reach the tipping point where not only the "non-rich" have more political power than the "rich," but also that point when the representatives who decide how to spend this country's tax money weren't voted in by people who pay any of that money.

The sad thing is these non-tax paying voters are more vulnerable to being conned by collectivist politicians claiming they're working for the "greater good," while helping to further consolidate power in the upper crust of society. I think a stronger middle-class rather than a stronger lower-class is the best way of combating this.

Pyngwyn, please don't make lower class automatic fools, when my 35 year old was in first grade, I used to take the usual deductions as well as a rent and tuition rebate from America. We do pay now. Oh do we pay. A lot of "lower class", (a tactless term), became tax payers in due time.

Instead of writing them off, how about the middle class "union", if I can call it that, guide the less fortunate to better days, remember the Big Brother days?. A tax payer can immigrate or be born here. My kid didn't pay into the system with a silver spoon in her mouth, but, I am proud to say that she damn well is paying her share of burdon today.

Solidarity can do more than just keep a chosen few strong. In time, the no-tax Americans may be able to do public service to offset their share until unemployment/underpayment is finally fixed.

But you are right about having to fight, the rich are not going to take losing control of the politicians lightly. Lets hope it will always stay a battle of wits and not a bloodbath.

Learn from others mistakes, it is much less painful.

I apologize if it sounded like I was writing off all of the lower-class; it wasn't my intention. I don't really like the term "lower class" either, but "working class" or "labor class" seem a little to specific for what is an ambiguous system by nature.

I also hope that most non-taxpayers are the upwardly-mobile ones you describe. My fear is that the ones who would rather be pulled up rather than having assistance getting up (a fine distinction) will gain too much power, vote in politicians to "help the poor," and end up pulling us all down in the process.

By the way, I am currently one of those non-taxpayers who aims to eventually make enough money that the government starts taking it away.

Just looking for decency in all walks of life. Best of luck in this economic climate on becoming better incomed, knowledge is power.

We are Americans, what we do to better America as we better ourselves should be our focus today. I have been telling people to google "fuel cell japanese" Some interesting facts our government isn't letting us know about, nor is the media that pretends to keep us informed.

Is that because we can't force our government to stop bottlefeeding a few rich people? Boycott civil servants that refuse to keep America solvant. Better to change the leaky plug, if it won't stop leaking. Gas and oil is necessary until America changes that fact.

Make our politicians fund alternates instead of slowing the gush of money to big oil a little. Plain fact, Japan has 2 fuel cell cars on the road. America can't do equal or better? We used to be proud of pioneering.

I'm not so sure that would all happen. These guys still want profits. As long as we plunk down the big bucks while they have their palms extended, they'll take it. If we leave them without the gift, they won't shut down. They will have to foot the bill. Besides, the percentage of this money compared to their profts is pretty low. It won't kill them. The effect on the lower classes of cutting off support for health care, education and such is a much harsher blow. Sure are a lot of folks willing to take that on.

I'm not so sure that you're being not so sure is a good basis for sound decision making. What I"m saying is let's go through these loopholes one by one and see what will be the likely effect of closing each one, then decide based on that knowledge. The list of bad decisions made on the basis of emotion or blind belief or faulty information is long. We should stop adding to it.

Joe Mota...A report this morning stated that in addition to the tax incentive you mentioned, Big Oil gets another subsidy for the equipment they purchase for US drilling. There are several others as well.

Ok, what is the difference between those subsidies and the bailout of Chrysler and GM? Don't the subsidies for drilling equipment help out the drilling equipment manufacturers too? Didn't GM just earn $4B and yet they don't have to pay taxes on any of it? Didn't GM get an interest free loan from the taxpayers to "pay back" the bailout? What is the difference? Why is one industry subsidy worthy while another industry is not?

covergirl1212...Unfortunately, when certain legislation was passed with more holes than Swiss Cheese, GE was able to avoid paying any taxes. It's those kinds of loopholes that have to be closed once and for all. Americans are generous enough to help when it's needed. But we've been played for suckers and now that we are all tapped out, they want to make it appear to be some kind of revenge for them getting wealthier and wealthier while the middle class disappears. That's just more BS.

The reality is that most pieces of legislation are so long and unending not even the politicians could digest all of them in the thousands of pages much less an average American. That's how they pull their fast ones on us. They keep us from knowing the fine print in their legislation.

Well this country was good while it lasted. Everyone bend over and kiss your ass goodbye, I know this country is going down the drain, hopefully we can kill off all the greedy sons-of-birtches sucking our country dry before its too late. Head to your local greed infested corp and take matters into your own hands, we will clear you of any wrong doing if you take out 2 or more heads from these corporations, guaranteed. Just make sure you let it be known your reasoning behind killing those leeches. Donald Trump should go first.

You have some very good points there. Good post.

Not sure where you get the idea that taxes are ever-escalating, from an article in USA Today this week:

The total tax burden — for all federal, state and local taxes — dropped to 23.6% of income in the first quarter, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

By contrast, individuals spent roughly 27% of income on taxes in the 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s — a rate that would mean $500 billion of extra taxes annually today, one-third of the estimated $1.5 trillion federal deficit this year.

If you read it carefully, I said that deficit reduction is "a" main goal, not "the" main goal. Plus, I fully agree that this issue is more political than real for many politicians, particularly conservatives. I feel that they are largely following the "starve the beast" mantra, using deficit reduction as a smokescreen to reduce or eliminate programs with which they don't agree anyway. You can tell that Republicans' don't really believe in deficit reduction by the way they absolutely refuse to consider anything that might be vaguely portrayed as a tax increase, especially on the wealthy. And the very fact that they ran away from Ryan's plan when it got challenged (rightfully or wrongfully) as doing away with Medicare, is also a strong indicator of their sincerity--or lack thereof on this issue.

Michael L...That's exactly what happened here in NJ. Governor Rich Pants publicly stated that BS line about "shared sacrifice". Then, when it came time to start cutting, where did he cut? Education, police departments, fire and safety and then put a 2% cap on the amount towns could raise in municipal funding.

Typical of all Republicans, when broached as to why he wouldn't place higher taxes on the wealthier New Jerseyans who rightfully earn more and pay far less in property taxes thanks to a huge number of exemptions they take advantage of in NJ, his response? "If we tax the rich at a higher rate, they'll move out of the state." Never mind that born and bred middle class New Jerseyans are leaving NJ because you cannot possibly retire here.

Governor Rich Pants has the idea that if he gets rid of all of the New Jerseyans who don't earn those Noo Yawkah 6-figure salaries, he'll have increased tax revenues to the state. What Governor Rich Pants wants is 6-figure New Jerseyans...none other need apply. Until the 6-figure Noo Yawkah imports are the only ones paying the taxes...roflmao.

Soon, NJ's pension obligations are going to be due. When that happens, the @!$%# will hit the fan. NJ is in almost as much debt as California. If you borrowed too much and the money is not comming in, you cut expenses. NJ spends much more in education than in other states so cutting education by 4% is a easy start. When NJ police officers are making almost 2x NYC officers, cutting police departments is also an easy start. And to suggest increasing property taxes in a state that has one of the highest property taxes already is crazy. Gov Christie did increase income taxes for the highest earners and now, if you're lucky enough to win the lottery, that is now taxed too.

Yep, I need a bailout and subsidies as well. Who can I go to for such services? No one I'm sure, for I am not making billions of dollars off the backs of hard working Americans, so I guess I'm s**t out of luck.

Start building the bunker.

Idealistic but true. Those who have the means to switch to alternative energy sources should do so but the average person can not afford it.

marinmom...Here in NJ, the solar energy companies have replaced electric companies. You get the solar panels free and just pay the monthly solar fee which is about one-third of what the electric bill was. There are also lease to buy arrangements. Check them out online first.

marinmom,
That may have once been true, but not so much anymore. Now it's more down to, which alternative energy do you use based on where you live? Also if you really want to stick it to the oil companies, switch to a diesel vehicle and start making your own fuel - anyone can do this with the current lineup of diesel cars, and for a lot less than you pay for petrol.

In New York, the state subsidizes 50% of solar panels so what did the solar panel distributers do? They increased prices so the net cost is still the same. What is a joke is that evacuated solar tubes to heat a house isn't subsidized but heavily taxed because the energy ( including so called alternate energy ) lobbyists don't want them to rain on their profits.

Just imagine that 80% of the sun's energy is in the form of heat and we are just ignoring it because some solar panel lobbying groups paid off a bunch of politicians to concentrate on capturing 20% of the sun's energy at 3% efficiency. Solar panels is a side show just like this stupid hearing on cutting subsidies for only 5 of the 100 or so oil companies.

ewent - this is interesting. I checked out one company, NJ Solar Power - but they don't seem to offer the free panels you're talking about. Which company should I check?

As a homeowner you are constantly worrying about what your electricity or gas bill is going to be from month to month. NJ Solar Power understands these worries and can help to minimize your stress with their low-cost solar panel system. At NJ Solar Power we can help to reduce your energy bills and receive supplementary income by installing a solar system that ultimately produces a more sustainable environment for you and your family.

System Design: We offer the home or business owner a FREE assessment of their solar opportunity. We begin this process by analyzing your home and evaluating the system size requirements using your annual electric usage. We then create a complete customized system design based on your individual setup.

Financing: NJ Solar Power will work with you to lay out the best options for your home or business, and help you to understand the system and its intricacies as well as the various payment options available. Options include a plan that often returns the entire cost of a system in as little as six years, or our no out of pocket lease option, we will reduce your electric bill up to 50% with no out of pocket expense.

Installation: NJ Solar Power has the state's best and most qualified engineers that will design and maintain your system to eliminate as much of your utility cost as your property will allow. Our installation teams utilize industry "best practices" in order to achieve decades of worry-free system operation.

Monitoring: All of our installations are equipped with remote monitoring capabilities so you are able to see the savings the system is providing. The monitoring also allows us to provide you with energy saving tips to help maximize returns. See an example of our Solar Monitoring (lots of data, please be patient).

Wait a minute! - Maybe I see it -- is this what you're referring to? our no out of pocket lease option, we will reduce your electric bill up to 50% with no out of pocket expense.

Alternate energy is expensive because it is a hobby, not a mainstream factory built option yet. A fuel cell engine costs about $20,000.00 until it becomes an assembly line product. Once the auto industry sees nobody can pay for the fuel for a gas powered engine, they will invest the profits, (what is left of them) to the retooling. Big oil will never give up the subsidies easily that may be used to make fuel cell engines affordable. Point is, Americans sit back and let the people we hire keep oil powerful. One of many stupid choices, but until we take hold of the politicians again, it is our own fault.

Where do I sign up for the Tax paying Americans Union? That way we can slip our civil servants the same under the table bribes and feed them caviar to get our concerns answered!! Or demand politicians listen to America.

There are a few solutions, when the opinions are all done.

Sarcasim duely noted, too bad it is not based on fact.

If your neighbor has an unfair monopoly on this country's primary energy source while getting tax breaks and subsidies I think you should kick his a** and take his sh**.

What vital commodity are they going to monopolize next? Baby formula?

marin,

Shut up and start your own oil company!!!

What a stupid reply.

marinmom...You expected better from the selfish, self-centered, self-important, bossy, overbearing righties? Bernie's just worried...no more Madoffing on his free time.

That's fine, just keep your bloody neighbor out of my pockets. I shouldn't have to support your neighbor's greed.