Subsidies or Tax Cut?

Notice how politicians call a tax rate reduction a "subsidy" when they want to poo-poo it, and a "tax cut" when they don't want to call it a subsidy? Cut taxes on people who aren't paying taxes to begin with, and it's a "tax cut" and how dare you call it a welfare handout. Cut already high (much higher than the global average) taxes on a business in America and those same politicians (yes, I'm talking about Obama and other Democrats) call it a subsidy.

The exact difference 'tween a subsidy and a tax cut can be subtle but there IS a difference and it's not just one of point of view. But that is not the subject of this post.

Rather I want to ask how in the world politicians and their followers get away with this? Despite what you've heard, the facts don't lie and oil companies already pay much higher tax rates than most other corporations. If anything it is the non-oil companies that are being subsidized. But trashing oil companies during a period of high gas prices always works for politicians.

But for how long?

While I'm at it, I'd like to ask the left a question. You oppose domestic drilling, right? I mean, most of you seem to. You claim that there is so little oil in this country anyway, it wouldn't make a dent in world oil supply and thus prices. Right? That's the argument I hear. So my question is: if there is such a trivial amount of oil in this country, why oppose domestic drilling? If you are right, oil companies wouldn't bother extracting this oil you are trying to protect, if the cost of extracting it is too high for it to be worth the bother.

It almost makes me think you're wrong and that there is actually much more oil in this country than you say. I mean, the oil companies are the people who want to drill, it's their money they want to put on the line to drill/sift/dig/whatever for this oil. Why would they push so hard for something that's of such little benefit to them?