Big Oil companies actually receive tax subsidies

When I said: What is an indirect subsidy? A company either receives tax dollars or it does not. A tax break is not a subsidy. ...you said: By admitting that he doesn't know what an indirect subsidy is, my opponent's economic credibility implodes. I am afraid you missed the entire point of the question. It was more of a rhetorical question for anyone to ask themselves because an indirect subsidy is very close to being an oxymoron. A subsidy, by the most common and normal definition is: 1. a direct financial aid furnished by a government, as to a private commercial enterprise, an individual, or another government. 2. any grant or contribution of money. This is from thefreedictionary.com. Notice number one says "direct financial aid." There is nothing in the definition that even implies indirect because that would mean the opposite of direct. This is why I am saying that many dictionaries and politicians and yourself simply have it wrong. What was annoying was that you tried to subtly imply that I am too stupid to Google the definition of an indirect subsidy but instead was asking you to educate me. That was not the case. I was not "admitting" that I did not know the definition of an indirect subsidy. If a subsidy is a grant of some kind of payment, how can that be indirect? Money either is transferred or it is not. If we stick to that one premise as to whether or not money is transferred to the oil companies or not, this debate will go a lot smoother. I said: There is nothing especially allowed and "set aside" for oil companies but if you listen to Obama, you would think otherwise. The IRS does not give them special treatment. Flat out false. We have already seen that Big Oil enjoys multiple tax breaks customized for oil producers including Intangible Drilling Cost Deductions, Tertiary Injectants Deduction, royalty relief for Outer Continental Shelf Deepwater Oil and Gas Production, etc. Okay, what I meant was, there are no taxpayer dollars set aside for oil companies. Sure, there are tax breaks for oil companies for the things you mention and they are unique to oil companies but that only makes sense. Walmart does not have tax breaks for drilling costs...because they don't drill for oil. Any big industry could have a unique "tax break" set aside for them. The correct economic term for the $16.6 billion figure is subsidy. The word subsidy does not necessarily mean that somebody gets a check. But that is precisely what everyone thinks. That is why Obama uses the phrase "taxpayer subsidies." Why do you think he throws in the word "taxpayer" along with subsidies? It is extremely obvious. He is working overtime to implant the idea that money comes out of your paycheck and goes to Exxon. My friend, who inspired me to start this debate, thinks exactly that. He spends his time at websites (usually leftist) that say exactly what politicians want them to think: Here is a white house link: http://www.whitehouse.gov... ...that says in the first paragraph in regard to the subsidies "which cost the American taxpayers billions of dollars each year." It does not cost the taxpayers one penny when oil companies pay less in taxes. That is not how taxes are collected. They don't decide to raise X amount of dollars where if oil companies pay less, we pay more. They tax on percentage of incomes. Another from http://www.nytimes.com... H "There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer." And one I mentioned from http://www.huffingtonpost.com... "why some of the wealthiest oil companies in the world were being given a helping hand by the American people. " Here: http://www.momscleanairforce.org... "The question remains as to why our dollars are going to companies that are reaping billions in profits," http://www.motherjones.com... says right in the sub-headline: "One of America's most profitable industries banks billions in subsidies" How are they banking billions in subsidies? They earn money and are allowed to keep more of it. I am sorry but who earned that money? Why shouldn't they be allowed to keep more of it instead of giving it to a government that did not so much as lift a finger to earn it and already make more than the oil companies do on a gallon of gas. Okay, getting off topic. There is simply no question that most people think tax dollars go to oil companies when the premise of this debate is that that is not the case. This article is a great explanation of the truth of the matter. http://www.forbes.com... It is ridiculous that people think we the people would be so much better off financially if these oil companies did not receive these "special" tax breaks. Let's run the numbers. According to: http://demonocracy.info... ...our thrify governement spends about 10 billion dollars a day. Since the oil companies combined are allowed about 12 billion a year in tax breaks, let's say the government takes that money too. That is enough money to run the federal government for slightly more than one day. Sound like a plan? This debate is focused on the meaning of the word subsidy. It was not supposed to be. It is supposed to be about the nonexistence of handouts to the oil companies. I'm sure that the President is as partisan and clever in his word choices as any politician, but the mere use of the word subsidy is not an Obama conspiracy. I did not say it was just an Obama conspiracy. It does not make him less guilty just because others before him have said the same stuff. Tax breaks are not given. They are allowed....Tax breaks cannot be given. The wordage is totally incorrect. Wow, that's a lot of creepy doubletalk. "I'm not giving the dog this biscuit, I'm allowing the dog to have this biscuit. If I gave the dog this biscuit people would think I was spoiling him, so I'm allowing the dog this biscuit so people will understand that biscuits are good for dogs....See how different that is?" Nope, can't say that I do. The dog won't give a damn and the biscuit is still a subsidy. Creepy doubletalk? I completely demonstrated the difference between a tax break and a subsidy by the $1,000,000/2,000,000 analogy which you did not even attempt to refute. Now I will refute your dog biscuit analogy. If a dog is given a biscuit, he has a biscuit just like if you were given $100, you have $100. If the dog is allowed to keep a biscuit that he already has, he is not being given anything just like if you are allowe to keep $100 that you already have, you are not being given anything. However, the way you worded it, you made it sound like you allowing him to have a biscuit that he already had was the same as you giving him one. The oil companies earn their original money. They are not "allowed" their money like you tried to allow your dog to have a biscuit. They already had made their money. You conveniently left this out for your analogy. To hold any credibility, your dog starts off with a biscuit that he already had but you did not show that. You simply compared giving to allowing as the same thing and in your dog's case, it would be except a proper analogy starts with your dog already having a biscuit just like the oil companies already have made their money. Until you can demonstrate that 1,000,000 is the same as 2,000,000 dollars, a tax break and subsidy will never be the same thing. Let me reiterate so we can stick to the subject. The definition of subsidy is not up for debate here. I don't care how many dictionaries say what, it is fundamentally flawed to say that a subsidy can be both a direct and indirect payment. That is like saying up can be a little bit down or black can be a little bit white. The real question is regardless of the definition of "subsidy," do you believe that taxpayers fund (those 12 billion dollars) the oil companies, as so many people believe? It comes down to whether or not money is being transferred out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the pockets of oil companies.