The new robber barons Obama Gang stealing

[bripat9643]

Democratic regulation? YUP.

Nope.

You're thoroughly brainwashed, franky.

 

[Political Junky]

ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated) | ThinkProgress

 

[Oldguy]

We're producing more oil and gas than we have in decades, perhaps ever, we're a net exporter of petroleum products and have begun exporting billions of cubic feet of Natural Gas and within another decade, we will once again be the largest producer of petroleum and petroleum byproducts in the world, surpassing Saudi Arabia.

Yet....Obama is doing something wrong?

 

[Moonglow]

North Dakota oilfields burn off natural gas because their is no pipeline to ship it because it is virtually worthless to the oil companies. There are however pipelines in the USA, many of them
Rextag Strategies Pipeline Mapping Products and Services for the Energy Industry

If the companies want a pipeline then they can do what the govt. wants them to do to get it built, even if that means making detours around environmentally sensitive areas. It a B.S. deal when compaies think they do not need to think about what is best for the Earth to earn a buck.

 

[Jroc]

We're producing more oil and gas than we have in decades, perhaps ever, we're a net exporter of petroleum products and have begun exporting billions of cubic feet of Natural Gas and within another decade, we will once again be the largest producer of petroleum and petroleum byproducts in the world, surpassing Saudi Arabia.

Yet....Obama is doing something wrong?

In spite of Obama, not because of him get it straight.

 

[Oldguy]

We're producing more oil and gas than we have in decades, perhaps ever, we're a net exporter of petroleum products and have begun exporting billions of cubic feet of Natural Gas and within another decade, we will once again be the largest producer of petroleum and petroleum byproducts in the world, surpassing Saudi Arabia.

Yet....Obama is doing something wrong?

In spite of Obama, not because of him get it straight.

Ok. Prove it.

 

[zeke]

We're producing more oil and gas than we have in decades, perhaps ever, we're a net exporter of petroleum products and have begun exporting billions of cubic feet of Natural Gas and within another decade, we will once again be the largest producer of petroleum and petroleum byproducts in the world, surpassing Saudi Arabia.

Yet....Obama is doing something wrong?

In spite of Obama, not because of him get it straight.

Ok. Prove it.

Old Guy. You think Santa is coming? A Repub prove what they believe as factual. LMAO.They are fact averse. Propaganda suits them much better. And propaganda says that Obama has done nothing to help our country. So that is what they say and believe.
Facts be damned.

 

[Mr. H.]

In spite of Obama, not because of him get it straight.

Ok. Prove it.

Old Guy. You think Santa is coming? A Repub prove what they believe as factual. LMAO.They are fact averse. Propaganda suits them much better. And propaganda says that Obama has done nothing to help our country. So that is what they say and believe.
Facts be damned.

This must mean that you're ready to demonstrate precisely how Obama's policies have benefited the oil and gas industries?

 

[Jroc]

ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated) | ThinkProgress

ExxonMobil in 2011 made $27.3 billion in cash payments for income taxes. Chevron paid $17 billion and ConocoPhillips $10.6 billion. And not only were these the highest amounts in absolute terms, when compared with the rest of the 25 most profitable U.S. companies (see our slideshow for the full rundown of who paid what), the trio also had the highest effective tax rates. Exxon’s tax rate was 42.9%, Chevron’s was 48.3% and Conoco’s was 41.5%. That’s even higher than the 35% U.S. federal statutory rate, which is already the highest tax rate among developed nations.

(The lowest taxpayers among the most profitable companies? Automakers Ford and GM, despite $20 billion and $9 billion in net income, respectively, paid a scant $270 million and $570 million in taxes — simply because they have billions in previous-year losses to balance against recent profits.)



just what are those tax breaks the president wants to take away from Big Oil? Here’s the three biggest ones. First off, the president doesn’t think that oil companies should be able to get credit on their U.S. income tax bills for all the billions in income taxes they pay to oil-rich regimes around the world. Second, the president doesn’t think Big Oil should be allowed to deduct from taxable income some of those costs incurred in exploring for oil and drilling wells. Third, the president wants to cancel oil companies’ domestic manufacturing tax deduction of 6% of the value of oil and gas they produce in the United States.

Those don’t sound like egregious handouts, but, said the president, “It’s not like these are companies that can’t stand on their own.” Sure they can stand on their own, but that’s not the point. Do we really want a corporate tax policy that has one set of rules for oil companies and another set for everybody else?

Yet the campaign against Big Oil tax breaks won’t end there. We’ll hear again and again between now and Election Day that oil companies aren’t paying their share. Left-leaning tax groups like the Citizens for Tax Justice try to make the case that ExxonMobil pays tax of just 13% or so on its U.S. profits. But if Exxon pays a smaller portion of its taxes in the U.S. it’s because it faces huge tax bills overseas in countries like Angola where the petroleum income tax is as high as 70%. Like every U.S. multinational, Exxon gets tax credits that offset their U.S. tax liability by the amount of tax paid to other countries.

How bad are those oil “tax breaks,” really? The deduction for oil drilling costs isn’t much different from the deductions that pharmaceutical companies are allowed to take for research and development costs (no one has proposed taking those away). And as for the domestic manufacturing deduction, every other company that manufactures anything in the U.S. can deduct up to 9% of the income they generate on those goods. Right now, oil companies only get a 6% deduction on the oil and gas they produce. Why single them out?

As Joseph Henchman of the Tax Foundation explains, “All this goes to show that what’s really behind this idea is the desire to extract revenue from a captive company (‘What are they going to do, move the oil field?’) in the belief that higher taxes won’t affect their behavior.”

Which Companies Pay The Most In Taxes? - Forbes

 

[Jroc]

Ok. Prove it.

Old Guy. You think Santa is coming? A Repub prove what they believe as factual. LMAO.They are fact averse. Propaganda suits them much better. And propaganda says that Obama has done nothing to help our country. So that is what they say and believe.
Facts be damned.

This must mean that you're ready to demonstrate precisely how Obama's policies have benefited the oil and gas industries?

That ought to be a good one let’s wait for it

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats don't mind robber barons. They like robber barons. As long as they have determined who the robber barons should be.

 

[Duped]

Obama gets an F in economics 101, and an A+ in Clover + Piven

 

[Mr. H.]

Here's a good'n...

American Energy Roadblocks by the Obama Administration - House Committee on Natural Resources

 

[Duped]

Libs don't give a crap; he is still their messiah!

 

[Oldguy]

Ok. Prove it.

Old Guy. You think Santa is coming? A Repub prove what they believe as factual. LMAO.They are fact averse. Propaganda suits them much better. And propaganda says that Obama has done nothing to help our country. So that is what they say and believe.
Facts be damned.

This must mean that you're ready to demonstrate precisely how Obama's policies have benefited the oil and gas industries?

Nimble change of topic to the question, but it won't wash.

 

[Oldguy]

Here's a good'n...

American Energy Roadblocks by the Obama Administration - House Committee on Natural Resources

The oil and gas industry has dealt with federal, state and local regulations since the late 19th century, yet they remain profitable and have provided this country (and most of the world) with virtually unlimited supplies of fuel and by-products.

Why on earth is it any different today....other than that regulations provide a way to once again bash Obama? We didn't hear anything about regulations during the Bush years. Why not? They existed, didn't they?

 

[Mr. H.]

Here's a good'n...

American Energy Roadblocks by the Obama Administration - House Committee on Natural Resources

The oil and gas industry has dealt with federal, state and local regulations since the late 19th century, yet they remain profitable and have provided this country (and most of the world) with virtually unlimited supplies of fuel and by-products.

Why on earth is it any different today....other than that regulations provide a way to once again bash Obama? We didn't hear anything about regulations during the Bush years. Why not? They existed, didn't they?

I'd have to do some digging, but there have been issues re: federal reguations/rules/taxation under all administrations.

It hasn't always been "profitable" in these industries. And unlike agriculture there are no safety nets. When the shit hits the fan, you go down.

During the Clinton years domestic crude prices hit $10/barrel. Remember that 99 cent gallon of gas? I do. Thousands of oil producers went out of business, many more thousands lost jobs, and Clinton nor the public gave a shit.

Foreign countries were dumping crude on our markets at below cost and the Feds did nothing.

No, profits are never guaranteed in these industries. Nor have they always been there.

 

[Oldguy]

Here's a good'n...

American Energy Roadblocks by the Obama Administration - House Committee on Natural Resources

The oil and gas industry has dealt with federal, state and local regulations since the late 19th century, yet they remain profitable and have provided this country (and most of the world) with virtually unlimited supplies of fuel and by-products.

Why on earth is it any different today....other than that regulations provide a way to once again bash Obama? We didn't hear anything about regulations during the Bush years. Why not? They existed, didn't they?

I'd have to do some digging, but there have been issues re: federal reguations/rules/taxation under all administrations.

It hasn't always been "profitable" in these industries. And unlike agriculture there are no safety nets. When the shit hits the fan, you go down.

During the Clinton years domestic crude prices hit $10/barrel. Remember that 99 cent gallon of gas? I do. Thousands of oil producers went out of business, many more thousands lost jobs, and Clinton nor the public gave a shit.

Foreign countries were dumping crude on our markets at below cost and the Feds did nothing.

No, profits are never guaranteed in these industries. Nor have they always been there.

Anybody who lives in the oil patch, as I do, knows the business goes through periodic boom's and bust's, and always has, no matter which party is in power or how many regulations there are or are not. It's just a cyclic business for a variety of reasons.

But, most people don't live in the patch or anywhere close to it, so they may not know it, which makes them fertile ground for harvesting partisan outrage.

Obama. Bush. Clinton. Right. Left. Democrat. Republican. It doesn't make much difference one way or the other.

 

[gallantwarrior]

We're producing more oil and gas than we have in decades, perhaps ever, we're a net exporter of petroleum products and have begun exporting billions of cubic feet of Natural Gas and within another decade, we will once again be the largest producer of petroleum and petroleum byproducts in the world, surpassing Saudi Arabia.

Yet....Obama is doing something wrong?

Link?

 

[gallantwarrior]

[/B][/SIZE]


Old Guy. You think Santa is coming? A Repub prove what they believe as factual. LMAO.They are fact averse. Propaganda suits them much better. And propaganda says that Obama has done nothing to help our country. So that is what they say and believe.
Facts be damned.

This must mean that you're ready to demonstrate precisely how Obama's policies have benefited the oil and gas industries?

Nimble change of topic to the question, but it won't wash.

No, I suppose we really shouldn't expect you to back up your contention that your messiah has done good things for energy development. We are expected to take you 'feelings' on the topic at face value...why?