Big Oil companies actually receive tax subsidies

It was more of a rhetorical question for anyone to ask themselves because an indirect subsidy is very close to being an oxymoron.If a subsidy is a grant of some kind of payment, how can that be indirect? Money either is transferred or it is not. Well, my opponent has demonstrated a significant lack of understanding regarding indirect subsidies. When asked the question "what is it,?" I assumed he was looking for information. Perhaps, I should have realized my opponent is not looking to expand his perspective on the subject, preferring instead to instruct all those ignorant Senators and economists and CEOs and encyclopaedists and US presidents about how they've all got the definition of subsidy wrong. The idea of an indirect subsidy is neither self-contradictory nor is it terribly difficult to grasp. Say my opponent owes me $20. If he gives me $20 (or $5 or $30 for that matter) that's a direct subsidy. If my opponent says, "tell you what, why don't I cook you dinner and we'll call it even," that's an indirect subsidy.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. Including, apparently, his own source material. My opponent has failed to read the second definition he cut & paste into his own argument- "Any grant or contribution of money" -clearly a definition so inclusive that tax breaks are implied. Here's the link to my opponent's citation (freedictionary.com is just a survey of other dictionary definitions).http://www.thefreedictionary.com...If we confine ourselves to my opponent's source, we find 5 definitions of the word subsidy that necessarily include financial aid like tax breaks and tax deductions: *Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest. (American Heritage Dictionary) *Financial assistance given by one person or government to another. (American Heritage Dictionary)*a financial aid supplied by a government, as to industry, for reasons of public welfare, the balance of payments, etc. (Collins English Dictionary) *any monetary contribution, grant, or aid (Collins English Dictionary)*any grant or contribution of money. (Random House Kernerman Webster College Dictionary)(RE: 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. I know. That is how words get their meanings. When everybody thinks that a word has a particular meaning, then that word has that particular meaning. The word "jazz" started out as a slang word for sperm, used in the same way that "jism" or "jizz" is today. "Jazz music" came into to use referring to the black music played in "jazz" houses or honky-tonks and whorehouses up and down the Mississippi River. Nowadays, people only think of "jazz" in reference to music and the original meaning has been left behind. Words mean what every thinks they mean. When my opponent states that "everybody thinks" that the definition of the word subsidy includes tax breaks, he concedes the central point of our debate.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.Still not an Obama conspiracy. "Taxpayer subsidies" is a common phrase in American politics, generally used when arguing against a particular subsidy. Here's a conservative blog using the phrase to oppose allowing Kentucky teachers days off for union activity, titled "Unions' Taxpayer Subsidized Activity." [1] Here's a Bloomberg editorial that characterizes the capacity of big banks to borrow money at lower interest rates than small banks titled "Big Banks Can't Hide Their Taxpayer Subsidy." [2] NOTE: here are two more examples of conservative media using the word subsidy to describe government benefits that do not involve receiving a check. Days off and lower interest rates are also commonly defined as subsidies.(RE: 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 companiesThe resolution of the debate is : "Big Oil companies actually receive tax subsidies." My opponent has already agreed that Big Oil receives concessions like tax breaks and depreciation reductions: "There are tax breaks for oil companies for the things you mention" and I have sufficiently shown that the definition of the word subsidy ordinarily includes such concessions. Therefore, my opponent's resolution stands refuted. Throwing out a new descriptor like "handouts" in Round3 can't be allowed, since that would require a new set of definitions and assumptions. Look at the comments section of this debate. User Numidious included an ordinary definition of the word subsidy, but rejected the debate because beyond the definition of the word, the debate was not controversial. My opponent's response was "You are exactly the kind of person who I want to debate - someone who thinks it is a given that oil companies receive subsidies." So the definition of the word was definitely my opponent's original focus. The next three commenters all agreed that this would be a semantic debate revolving around the word subsidy. 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 analogyI had just finished pointing out that correct term for $16.6 billion figure in the Exxon example was subsidy and that the correct term for the $100K figure in the bad accountant example was also subsidy. It seemed redundant to also point out that the correct term for the $1 million figure in the $1million/$2million example (not analogy) was also subsidy. Unfortunately, my opponent missed the point so let's belabor the obvious. If a company receives a $1million government grant, the correct term for that $1million is subsidy. If a company receives $1million in tax breaks the correct term for that $1million is subsidy. My opponent wishes to imply by the second example that a subsidy has no value since the company starts and ends with $1million. However, in the absence of government subsidies, the second company would be worth $0. Therefore both subsidies in both examples have a real value of $1million.The dog and biscuit analogy was a critique of my opponent's bewildering allow/not give semantics. Using ordinary language, tax breaks are given. It follows that tax breaks are also allowed. But then creating some false distinction between these two dynamics and suggesting that the false distinction somehow informs the definition of subsidy smacks of the Orwellian. It's like saying "there are dogs and then there are pooches- dogs are fine, but I really can't stand pooches." My opponent makes a distinction without a difference and makes little headway with his second attempt. If a dog is allowed a biscuit that biscuit is an owner subsidy. If an owner gives his dog a biscuit, but his dog regurgitates half the biscuit on his owner's shoe, that upchuck is a dog subsidy. If the dog baked his own biscuits, better put that pooch on David Letterman.Look, I think my opponent's intentions are pretty clear at this point. He would like to instigate a debate called "Big Oil Should Continue to Receive Government Subsidies." Unfortunately for my opponent, subsidies for the very wealthiest corporations are unpopular. Without taking a position on Big Oil subsidies myself, I think it can be fairly said that most people ascribe to Ronald Reagan's conventional wisdom: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving subsidize it." [3]In pursuit of a win on an unpopular subject, my opponent has followed the Republicans' lead in an effort to pretend that the word subsidy does not apply in the context of Big Oil. I suppose the reasoning is that if some kind of false dichotomy can be developed, voters will be less certain in their opposition to large concessions to Big Oil. The problem with this tactic is that the debate has moved from public policy (should we Americans endorse some plan) to a statement of bald anti-fact (this word does not mean what dictionaries say it means). I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides of the policy debate, essentially another supply-side vs Keynesian conflict. I do not think there are any good arguments in support of re-defining a word for political gain. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com... If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com... [1] http://www.realclearpolicy.com...[2] http://www.bloomberg.com...[3] http://www.brainyquote.com...