Big Oil companies actually receive tax subsidies

You gave several definitions of the word "subsidy." Some were dead on correct and some were not. I gave one dictionary definition and one encyclopedic definition. Since the focus of the debate is semantic in nature, I expect a pretty well-defined argument when taking exception to the widely accepted definition of the word subsidy. I hope my opponent will take the time to explain his precise objections to Mirriam-Webster and/or Wikipedia. Of course, my opponent will need to offer a preferred alternative definition from a similarly objective source. What is an indirect subsidy? A company either receives tax dollars or it does not. A tax break is not a subsidy. By admitting that he doesn't know what an indirect subsidy is, my opponent's economic credibility implodes. After all, the term is found in any Economics 101 textbook and easily googled. My opponent has offered the argument that only direct subsidies should be called subsidies and that indirect subsidies should never be called subsidies, but then he admits that he has no understanding of indirect subsidies. Encyclopedia Brittanica explains the difference between direct and indirect subsidies in this way:"A distinction is made between direct, or visible, subsidies (such as direct payments for ship construction and airline operation), which are easy to identify and measure, and indirect, or concealed, subsidies (such as price ceilings or floors, tariffs, and tax concessions), which are difficult to identify and always difficult to measure.... Indirect subsidies arise when governments buy directly from private producers at higher-than-market prices, maintain higher prices through manipulation of markets, provide services to private enterprises at prices below the cost of providing the service, or grant special tax concessions." [1] it is politically misleading for the politicians and other media to target oil companies and talk about their "tax breaks." Targeting oil companies necessarily implies some political calculation. There is nothing misleading, however, about employing the word subsidy to describe tax breaks. We have seen that objective reference sources clearly define tax breaks and other Big Oil concessions as subsidy. The relative wisdom of Big Oil subsidies is not under contention in this debate.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.The president tries hard to intermingle the words "subsidy" and "tax breaks" as if they are the same thing. By those definitions provided from Wikipedia, Mirriam-Webster, and Encyclopedia Brittanica, all tax breaks are subsidies. Not every subsidy is a tax break, but all tax breaks are subsidies. When the President uses the word subsidy to refer to tax breaks, he only demonstrates an understanding of the words. I never said Republicans have it right either, lol! The brainwashing is so deep on the word "subsidy," that even some document from an oil company intermingles the two.My opponent misses the point. I demonstrated that Republicans understand the definition of the word subsidy and use the word correctly in most contexts, but pretend the word has a different meaning whenever Big Oil is at the table. Oil executives understand the word subsidy and use it correctly when speaking to stockholders, but pretend the word has a different meaning when giving testimony before Congress. As George Orwell said, " If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."[2] Republicans and Big Oil are not merely getting it wrong, they are demonstrating a will to corrupt the clarity of governance in exchange for cash and a "W" on the scoreboard. Another Orwell reference- ********************** "O'Brien held up the fingers of his left hand, with the thumb concealed. ‘There are five fingers there. Do you see five fingers?’ ‘Yes.’ And he did see them, for a fleeting instant, before the scenery of his mind changed. He saw five fingers, and there was no deformity.... There had been a moment — he did not know how long, thirty seconds, perhaps — of luminous certainty, when each new suggestion of O'Brien's had filled up a patch of emptiness and become absolute truth, and when two and two could have been three as easily as five, if that were what was needed." -1984 [3]************************If any truth is fungible, then what truth is worth fighting for? Or, as my opponent puts it, "when people hear a lie over and over again, it starts to sound like and become the truth." NOTE: Although I condemn Republicans and Big Oil in this instance, I do not mean to suggest that Republicans or Big Oil are particularly guilty in this regard. The corruption of language for influence is endemic in any place of power. Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes" is a precise allegorical critique of this same dynamic.In 2011, Exxon paid 27.3 billion in taxes. Let's say that got a literal check from the taxpayers for 16.6 billion. All that really means is that Exxon paid 27.3-16.6 = 10.7 billion in taxes. Where was the subsidy? They did not actually receive any cash for 16.6 billion. The correct economic term for the $16.6 billion figure is subsidy. The word subsidy does not necessarily mean that somebody gets a check. When Nero implemented bread and circuses for Rome, nobody got a check but those programs were by definition subsidies. When Finland gives a box of diapers and baby clothes to every expectant Finnish mother, nobody gets a check, but that program is still called a government subsidy. When FEMA hands out bottled water after a tornado passes, that's not a check but it is a subsidy. You have a company with $1,000,000. The IRS contacts you and says you owe $100K in taxes. The next day, they realize they made a mistake because you did not take all of your deductions (fat chance) and call you back and say that you do not owe the $100K after all. Did your company just get richer by $100K> Some would say that you did because you "owed" the 100K but now you have been given a "subsidy/tax break" of 100K. The 100K in deductions is correctly defined as a federal subsidy irregardless of the competence of accountants. The meaning of the word does not change just because somebody forgot to collect.I am assuming you thought I was a Republican? Liberal websites love to keep pushing this idea ... etc.This debate is focused on the meaning of the word subsidy. We can debate red team/blue team in some future debate. If subsidies and tax breaks were the same thing, why would even Obama sometimes differentiates between the two? As I explained, tax breaks and subsidies have two different meanings. Tax breaks are a subset of subsidies. All tax breaks are subsidies, not all subsidies are tax breaks. The bill Obama is talking about addresses subsidies for Big Oil, some of which are tax breaks, some of which are not. When Obama wants to call attention to tax breaks, he says "tax breaks." When he addresses subsidies in general, he says subsidies. Obama knows that if he just mentions tax breaks, something anyone can get, it won't have nearly the impact as the word "subsidy" The fact that Obama uses a word is not much of an argument for redefining that word. Would it help to know that every President since Nixon has supported repeal of these same subsidies and failed?"Under our new tax proposal the oil and gas industry will be asked to pick up a larger share of the national tax burden. By eliminating this special preference, we'll go a long way toward ensuring that those that earn their wealth in the oil industry will be subject to the same taxes as the rest of us. This is only fair. " -Ronald Reagan [4]“I will tell you with $55 oil we don’t need incentives to the oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent.”-George W. Bush [5]Even John Boehner and Paul Ryan have expressed support for repealing some subsidies. I bring this up not to take sides on the issue, but to demonstrate that talking about Big Oil subsidies is not a new or liberal notion. 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.The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code.Not true, but also not relevant. Whether the current tax code is fair has no bearing on the definition of the word subsidy. 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.[1] http://www.britannica.com...[2] https://www.mtholyoke.edu...[3] http://orwell.ru...[4] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...[5] http://thinkprogress.org...