Big Oil companies actually receive tax subsidies

a grant or contribution of money is not a tax break. grant transitive verb \G2;grant\ : to agree to do, give, or allow (something asked for or hoped for) : to give (something) legally or formally [1] Not every grant is a tax break, but every tax break is by definition a grant (and transitive to my opponent's definition of subsidy, a subsidy). con·trib·ute verb \kən-G2;tri-byət, -(G6;)byüt also & especially before -ed or -ing -G2;tri-bət; chiefly British also G2;kän-trə-G6;byüt\ : to give (something, such as money, goods, or time) to a person, group, cause, or organization [2] Not every contribution is a tax break, but every tax break is by definition a contribution (and transitive to my opponents definition of subsidy, a subsidy). A grant or contribution of $100 to you means you have $100 more than you had. A tax break of any amount allowed to you is not in any way, shape or form a transfer of money to you.People receive tax return checks all the time, often as a result of tax breaks. A tax break must be a transfer of money because the result is tangible value. You are not one penny richer because of a tax break. You are simply not a penny poorer. If that were true, why would anybody spend grueling hours filling out tax forms to qualify for tax breaks? Why would anybody pay an accountant? Tax breaks have value.How is it that you cannot understand the difference between having $100 handed to you and not having $100 taken from you? I fail to understand why this is a difficult concept but evidently, for a lot of people, it is. The point is that the difference my opponent describes is not relevant to the dynamic under discussion.Tax is not money is that is taken from us. Tax is money owed in exchange for government service. Say government charges a $100 highway maintenance tax but also encourages energy efficiency with a $10 subsidy for hybrid cars. That $10 subsidy has real value. Now, a Prius owner can afford a green chile burger and a pint of stout. The $90 is a taxpayer subsidy- money paid to help the government to continue to function. The $10 is a government subsidy- money paid to encourage energy efficiency. The anti-Prius lobby might oppose the subsidy by crying out about "taxpayer subsidized burgers and beer." It may even be true from a limited perspective. Talking about whether the $10 was taken or given or allowed is silly. Any civil transaction may be viewed as given or taken or allowed depending depending on your political perspective regarding the transaction.I suppose for all the people that cannot understand the difference, you will get their vote if anyone reads this debate.Well, let's hope so. It is one thing to think that a tax break is a subsidy and if you or anyone wants to define it that way, fine. I cannot stop you. I'm more interested in preserving the objective definition of the word. However, the crux of the matter is is that numerous people literally think that when an oil company gets a tax break/subsidy, money is transferred from the pockets of taxpayers to the fat bank accounts of the oil companies. This is 100% false. I have stated repeatedly to no avail that this debate is not about the definition of subsidy. It is abundantly clear that there are numerous definitions of the word itself. I have tried 11 different ways from Thursday to say that this debate, using the classical and most sensical definition of a subsidy which is a grant, is about whether or not oil companies receive a transfer of wealth from taxpayer to them. For some reason, I cannot get you to take a stand on that at all or to even address that. You are so focused on the headline of the debate, you are missing the point.When Obama uses the term "taxpayer subsidies," let me demonstrate the deception in his words. I have already shown proof from several website links that many people think they are literally getting money from us taxpayers. That is not in dispute. The question is why does Obama (and no, he is not alone) call a tax break a "taxpayer subsidy?" Since a subsidy, as you and some dictionaries define it is a type of tax break, let's do some word substitution. Instead of Obama calling them "taxpayer subsidies", why does he not call them "taxpayer tax breaks" since a tax break is a kind of subsidy? No, he won't call it that because that does not makes sense and more importantly, there is no such thing!If your definition of a subsidy is truly nothing more than a tax break in some cases, why does he call them "taxpayer" subsidies"? Why not call them what you say they actually are - "government subsidies" or "government tax breaks." No money is being transferred from taxpayers but he calls it that to instill the idea in the public's mind a lie that money is leaving their pockets for the oil company's pockets.No citizen of a large democracy feels satisfaction with every government policy. Certainly no citizen is satisfied with every government subsidy, since subsidies can be found on every degree of the political spectrum. Pro-lifers resent subsidies to women's health clinics. Vegans resent subsidies to slaughterhouses. Since all government taxpayer money is fungible, any and all taxes pay for any and every government initiative in a limited sense. Politicians love to incite opposition to a program by giving voice to this limited perspective. Pro-lifers challenge every dollar spent on women's health with the phrase "taxpayer funded abortion," even though doctors, like Big Oil, pay more money than they get out.My opponent supports Big Oil subsidies and wants them to continue. Rather than formulate arguments against the predictable "taxpayer subsidy" argument, my opponent wants to cry foul and administer a prophylactic rewrite of the dictionary. Perhaps my opponent lacks confidence in the pro-subsidy position, perhaps not. Either way, taking on the definition of the word subsidy is a distraction that's all downside. The "taxpayer subsidy" argument shows up in some variation on both sides of just about every issue across the political landscape. My opponent does not argue against the political tactic itself, he only singles out the issue of Big Oil, constructs some conspiracy from the commonplace uses of the word subsidy, and demands that we toss all established meaning and precedent so that defending Big Oil might be a little less necessary. Taxpayers do not give tax breaks to oil companies Of course we do. We are a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Ultimately, the power behind and responsibility for every government concession rests with the people.We want to end the people giving a helping hand to oil companies and making the rich richer." That is his message and to say it has worked would be an understatement.As I stated before, every president since Nixon has worked to abolish some of these antiquated subsidies without success. Some variation of repeal of Big Oil tax has come before Congress in each of the last three years and been voted down. In terms of results, I would hardly say that Obama's tactic has been effective. Since the election of GW Bush in 2000, Big Oil has enjoyed deregulation and spectacular increases in wealth on a scale unmatched since the Robber Barons of the 1880s. It is interesting that supporters of Big Oil subsidies consistently feel so put upon, reminiscent of the delusional self-pitying of the "War on Christmas" folks. Is it really so unrealistic that a government for the people should pause to consider why we are not sharing in the success of those corporations for which we build infrastructure, defend property, and extensively subsidize? [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...