"...doing just fine on their own."

[logical4u]

Eligibility for the deduction is broader than one might initially believe. Traditional manufacturers of tangible personal property are eligible, but so are engineers, architects, film producers, developers of software, and firms involved in real property construction and renovation, among others. Of course, only production activity within the United States qualifies for the tax break, as implied by the deduction’s name.

The Domestic Manufacturing Tax Deduction - Real Opportunities, Real Savings

Let's just cherry-pick the oil industry and get all those billions back that was handed to them by the taxpayers. As Obama said "they're doing just fine on their own".

When you pay personal income taxes, do you consider that money to be yours first and foremost?
If you earn it by working, if it shows up in the form of a paycheck, if you deposit it in the bank - it was at one time in your posession.

But somehow the oil and gas industry is so unique, so special, that the President feels it is his duty to single it out and declare that "they're doing just fine on their own". And he predicates it by saying that we can have one million electric vehicles on our roads paid for by taking billions of dollars that belong to the industry in the first place.

What is the connection? Where is the logic?

What is going to power thse electric vehicles? Will it be solar (only on a sunny day), wind (only when there is a stiff breeze), hydro (environmentalist are trying to destroy every dam built), natural gas, oil (imported), coal, or nuclear. How does that polute, less?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yeah, Obama hates the oil industry so much he loaned PETROBRAS $10,000,000,000

What a guys.

 

[logical4u]

Has this President not learned anything about the petroleum industry during his two years in office? Evidently not. For him to make such a blatanly ignorant comment during his State of the Union speech is not only irresponsible, but it sends a very wrong message to America.

"I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies."

What gives?

Tax preference items? Accelerated depreciation? Depletion? Amortization? Intangible costs?

Oh yeah- he's referring to the myriad of provisions that have been a part of the tax code for decades, all of which are afforded other industries who are doing even "finer" than oil and gas concerns.

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by this guy's short-sighted whimsical jabs, singling out the most critically vital industry in our nation - one that employs over 9 million people and contributes nearly 8% of the GDP.

Did you watch the streaming approval chart when Obamasturbator made these comments?
Democrats had an orgasm. Republicans pissed their pants.

And what would be the fruits of eliminating "the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies"? Would oil imports drop? Fuck no! Domestic production will drop, imports will go up.

If The 'Bator is looking for money, let him start with Agriculture, Investment Banking, Pharmeceuticals, Telecoms, etc. etc. - you know- the industries that reap even more billions in taxpayer dollars.

Spoken like a true "conservative"....but haven't you heard about out $1.5T defecit? Wouldn't eliminating these breaks to companies who can obviously do just fine with out them help to eliminate that defecit? How about the BILLIONS given to farmers? Defense spending? Hello??

Let us be clear. Are we talking about the government handing taxpayer money to the "oil companies" or are we talking about the government taking less money from the "oil companies"? They are two very different things.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yeah, Obama hates the oil industry so much he loaned PETROBRAS $10,000,000,000

What a guys.

Yeahhhh... Who owns a huge part of Petrobras? Oh that's right. George Soros. Can we say payoff?

Plus this is just another sop to another nation we can't afford. Therefore, how's he helping domestic oil production and our economic security?

That's right. It's not. But we knew that too.

 

[cutter]

Yeah, Obama hates the oil industry so much he loaned PETROBRAS $10,000,000,000

What a guys.

I guess it's only American oil companies he hates.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yeah, Obama hates the oil industry so much he loaned PETROBRAS $10,000,000,000

What a guys.

I guess it's only American oil companies he hates.

Apparantly.

 

[Samson]

With respect to Obama's targeting of the oil and gas industry... I repeat that it was the wrong message, it's the wrong policy, and there is plenty more money out there in other industries.

You may be referring to the Corn Industry.

$4B subsidies in 2009

The largest single recipient was Clawson Farm Partnership, which received $236,000 in 2009.

Clawson Farm Partnership received payments totaling $9,238,459 from 1995 through 2009

The premise for these subsidies is to preserve the National Food Source.

It is interesting that the Obama Administration does not view the National Energy Source as equally deserving.

Apparently they plan to transport the nation's food via.........Oxen drawn wagons?

And instead of a mechanized military, we'll reinstate the Horse Calvary?

Finally, does he believe that the US will make any serious difference in carbon emmissions if the government decreases subsidies?

Internationally, the US subsidizes fossil fuels MUCH less than Russia, China, India, or Mexico, and all of OPEC.

So if we're trying to preserve Corn as a Food Source, why are is the government also subidizing burning it for fuel?

You can eat it too.

 

[Samson]

...
But somehow the oil and gas industry is so unique, so special, that the President feels it is his duty to single it out and declare that "they're doing just fine on their own". And he predicates it by saying that we can have one million electric vehicles on our roads paid for by taking billions of dollars that belong to the industry in the first place.

What is the connection? Where is the logic?

Well, not to mention politics in a SOU designed to not to be political, but Obama had to throw a bone to the Leftwing Looney Tunes blathering away about Peak Oil, Global Warming, Halliburton, and "Big Oil."

I have no doubt that his rhetoric will be empty.

 

[rdean]

Has this President not learned anything about the petroleum industry during his two years in office? Evidently not. For him to make such a blatanly ignorant comment during his State of the Union speech is not only irresponsible, but it sends a very wrong message to America.

"I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies."

What gives?

Tax preference items? Accelerated depreciation? Depletion? Amortization? Intangible costs?

Oh yeah- he's referring to the myriad of provisions that have been a part of the tax code for decades, all of which are afforded other industries who are doing even "finer" than oil and gas concerns.

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by this guy's short-sighted whimsical jabs, singling out the most critically vital industry in our nation - one that employs over 9 million people and contributes nearly 8% of the GDP.

Did you watch the streaming approval chart when Obamasturbator made these comments?
Democrats had an orgasm. Republicans pissed their pants.

And what would be the fruits of eliminating "the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies"? Would oil imports drop? Fuck no! Domestic production will drop, imports will go up.

If The 'Bator is looking for money, let him start with Agriculture, Investment Banking, Pharmeceuticals, Telecoms, etc. etc. - you know- the industries that reap even more billions in taxpayer dollars.

Are you saying we don't give enough money to oil companies? Isn't giving them money "corporate SOCIALISM"?

Yea, we need to cut Social Security and Medicare so we can give more to oil companies.

 

[Mr. H.]

Who ever "gave" anything to oil companies?

Is taking less an act of "giving"?

 

[rdean]

Who ever "gave" anything to oil companies?

Is taking less an act of "giving"?

sub·si·dy (sbs-d)
n. pl. sub·si·dies
1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.

subsidies - definition of subsidies by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[8537]

What options? What options will realistically be able to replace oil in our society?

Those questions are why we need to fund R&D. Fifty years ago we saw zero other options. We now see a host of potential options including a mix of solar, wind power, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels...none of which can singly replace oil at the moment.

What is your source for oil being an increasingly scarce resource?

Let's make sure we agree on a couple things here, ok?
1. Oil is a finite resource. It does not replenish in any way meaningful to human timelines.

2. We are using our stock of that finite resource.

Surely you don't disagree with either of those?
From those obvious facts, it follows logically that oil is becoming increasingly scarce.

If you're a 'sip, I can understand how easily you are confused.

There are plenty of threads for Peak Oil Idiots to repeat the mantra they've memorized over the past 70 years: Find one.

This thread is about the Obama Administration's refusal to subsidize a vital national resource: certainly one that it no less vital than Corn, producers of which also receive subsidies.

So, you are of the opinion that oil is not a finite resource?

 

[8537]

What options? What options will realistically be able to replace oil in our society?

Those questions are why we need to fund R&D. Fifty years ago we saw zero other options. We now see a host of potential options including a mix of solar, wind power, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels...none of which can singly replace oil at the moment.

What is your source for oil being an increasingly scarce resource?

Let's make sure we agree on a couple things here, ok?
1. Oil is a finite resource. It does not replenish in any way meaningful to human timelines.

2. We are using our stock of that finite resource.

Surely you don't disagree with either of those?
From those obvious facts, it follows logically that oil is becoming increasingly scarce.

None of the things that you listed can currently come anywhere even close to realistically replacing oil.

I know! That's the point - that's why we need to focus efforts on finding other sources. Unless you agree with others here that oil is somehow renewable in a timeframe meaningful to humans.

So, you have no facts or figures then? When is oil going to run out?

It's not a question of when it will run out. It's a question of when production is maximized and the increasing prices associated with extraction - hence the meme about $140 / barrel oil.

 

[8537]

So if we're trying to preserve Corn as a Food Source, why are is the government also subidizing burning it for fuel?

Because the first and most important stop on the Primaries Parade for Presidential candidates is in Iowa.

 

[Samson]

Those questions are why we need to fund R&D. Fifty years ago we saw zero other options. We now see a host of potential options including a mix of solar, wind power, nuclear, geothermal, biofuels...none of which can singly replace oil at the moment.


Let's make sure we agree on a couple things here, ok?
1. Oil is a finite resource. It does not replenish in any way meaningful to human timelines.

2. We are using our stock of that finite resource.

Surely you don't disagree with either of those?
From those obvious facts, it follows logically that oil is becoming increasingly scarce.

If you're a 'sip, I can understand how easily you are confused.

There are plenty of threads for Peak Oil Idiots to repeat the mantra they've memorized over the past 70 years: Find one.

This thread is about the Obama Administration's refusal to subsidize a vital national resource: certainly one that it no less vital than Corn, producers of which also receive subsidies.

So, you are of the opinion that oil is not a finite resource?

No, it is my opinion that oil is a strategic resource.

 

[8537]

If you're a 'sip, I can understand how easily you are confused.

There are plenty of threads for Peak Oil Idiots to repeat the mantra they've memorized over the past 70 years: Find one.

This thread is about the Obama Administration's refusal to subsidize a vital national resource: certainly one that it no less vital than Corn, producers of which also receive subsidies.

So, you are of the opinion that oil is not a finite resource?

No, it is my opinion that oil is a strategic resource.

and is it finite?

 

[Mr. H.]

Who ever "gave" anything to oil companies?

Is taking less an act of "giving"?

sub·si·dy (sbs-d)
n. pl. sub·si·dies
1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.

subsidies - definition of subsidies by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

o.k.fine (okfn)
n. roger that


So... show me the money. When did the government cut a physical check to the oil and/or gas industry? As in the "billions of dollars" that Obama proclaims.

Again, the "subsidies" to the petroleum industry amount to taking less in taxes from that industry. As is the case with most other industries, save for agriculture. Agriculture- as in, "here's a check for not growing crops" "here's a check because it rained" "here's a check because grain prices aren't where you think they should be"...

The premise of this thread isn't to deny the existence of any preferential tax treatments to the petroleum industy. Rather, Obama targeting that industry to bankroll his agenda.

BTW- HOT OFF THE PRESS: THE STATE OF AMERICAN ENERGY

https://ex.democracydata.com/35CC70...C503/8bee6dfd-ce28-4caa-85cd-9da69bb15ad1.pdf

Since 2000, nearly $2 trillion in U.S. capital projects implimented to advance all forms
of energy, including alternatives, while reducing the industry’s environmental footprint.

Not too shabby for an industry that has "bilked" U.S. taxpayers out of billions of dollars of it's own hard-earned money.

 

[Samson]

So, you are of the opinion that oil is not a finite resource?

No, it is my opinion that oil is a strategic resource.

and is it finite?

I just said I know fossil fuels are a finite resource.

But to discourage production while your infrastructure still depends on it, and will depend on it for the next few decades as its primary energy source, is irresponsible.

 

[8537]

No, it is my opinion that oil is a strategic resource.

and is it finite?

I just said I know fossil fuels are a finite resource.

But to discourage production while your infrastructure still depends on it, and will depend on it for the next few decades as its primary energy source, is irresponsible.

Discouraging production? There's quite a chasm between ending a subsidy and "discouraging production".

 

[Samson]

and is it finite?

I just said I know fossil fuels are a finite resource.

But to discourage production while your infrastructure still depends on it, and will depend on it for the next few decades as its primary energy source, is irresponsible.

Discouraging production? There's quite a chasm between ending a subsidy and "discouraging production".

Opinion