Congress clashed with oil companies over oil subsidies today:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/01/news/companies/oil_hearing/index.htm?cnn=yes

In an unfortunate role reversal, it seems Democrats are the ones interested in cutting subsidies while Repubs are fighting to keep them, despite huge profit margins posted by such oil companies.

Oil companies have huge profits... not huge profit margins. Their margins are about 10% which are on the low side. This is much less than microsoft for example which is over 40%.

Corporate welfare and the rule by a small protected elite has always been a hallmark of conservative thought, going back to Sir Edmund Burke.

Role-reversal? Doesn't look like that to me. When was the last small-government conservative in office? Or holding a significant portion of Congress? The only Republican President to finish a term with a significant reduction in the ratio of national debt to GDP in recent history was Eisenhower. Nixon didn't do too bad, though.

When was the last small-government conservative in office?

George W. Bush and Bill Clinton before him and George HW Bush before him and Reagan before him.

They all held that "smaller government" by itself was somehow good, but the problem is that "smaller government" is meaningless rhetoric used by conservatives (yes Clinton is a conservative democrat) who simply hate government. Those people end up turning government into nothing more than an ATM for their favorite corporations.

What we need is efficient, effective government.

Eisenhower knew that, as my thread about the 1956 Republican platform (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=34087)showed.

Reagan? Small-government? You're off it. Massive military deficit spending far outstripping the small cuts to social programs his administration made is not small-government.

George W. Bush and Bill Clinton before him and George HW Bush before him and Reagan before him.

They all held that "smaller government" by itself was somehow good, but the problem is that "smaller government" is meaningless rhetoric used by conservatives (yes Clinton is a conservative democrat) who simply hate government. Those people end up turning government into nothing more than an ATM for their favorite corporations.

What we need is efficient, effective government.

Eisenhower knew that, as my thread about the 1956 Republican platform (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=34087)showed.

Which is why,The New Democrat Party is not the way to go for
the future of Amerca.
They are mired in a past of Historic,unyielding,imprudent social
programs and experiments that fail,time and time again.
Republicans have a more laissez-faire {hands off} approach to
governance.A safety net is a worthwhile Democratic goal,but
NOT Cradle to Grave,which is what BOTH Hillary and Obama are
secretly coding in their disingenuous way of pandering for votes.
Like Hillary geting elected Senator by promising jobs to upstate New York.

Reagan? Small-government? You're off it. Massive military deficit spending far outstripping the small cuts to social programs his administration made is not small-government.

The rhetoric of the Cons rarely ever meets the reality.
Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.

Congress clashed with oil companies over oil subsidies today:


Actually, the subsidies are for all corporations, not just the oil companies. Personally, I think we'd be better off getting rid of the subsidies, which supposedly encourage economic activity in this country, and just lower taxes an equivalent amount.

Actually, the subsidies are for all corporations, not just the oil companies. Personally, I think we'd be better off getting rid of the subsidies, which supposedly encourage economic activity in this country, and just lower taxes an equivalent amount.


Ah, I didn't catch that part. Thanks for the clarification tho. You don't perchance have a link to something explaining about this "subsidy?"

Lets have a baked goods sale; for Big Oil.

we can get the price of a gallon a gas Down by 10%.
And that's today.
It's the Tax on gas that deepens the cost.
Plus Democrats like high gas prices.They must.Why else did
they for years make policy's to avoid and even campaign on
No drilling to Anwar.
No new Refineries.
Kennedy not allowing Wind turbines in his precious Summer home backyard
on account it would hamper his sailing.
No offshore drilling,because Democrats like Huckster Global Warming
Hoaxer,Al Gore and Party think the environment is more precious
than oil,which is a natural resource.
No Nuclear Power plants because someone might git hurt.
Nuclear power is practically safer than kids drinkin milk.

It's The Democrats.
Always has been and always will bees in my lifetime.
Maybe if some smart Repubbie,could run for Re-election on the
Promise of a Congressional Fiat to Drill Democrats.
Y'nose... like maybe sums mush needed Lobotomies.

If you want to reduce the impact oil prices have on society, we need more gas tax, not less (balanced with reduced taxation elsewhere of course!).

If you want to reduce the impact oil prices have on society, we need more gas tax, not less (balanced with reduced taxation elsewhere of course!).

65 cents per gallon is quite enough,I thank you NOT.
Granted our Highways need repair.
So does our peace of mind.
Dimocrats screw with Honest,tax paying folks sanity.

Ah, I didn't catch that part. Thanks for the clarification tho. You don't perchance have a link to something explaining about this "subsidy?"

Not really. It's mentioned briefly in the link in the original post and the part about it existing to encourage business or whatever I heard on NPR.

The rhetoric of the Cons rarely ever meets the reality.
Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.

well we knew that... drink the kool-aid from liberal bloggers and then relay their messages to us on here. Ever try having a thought of your own?