Oil Execs Say Obama Lead Us To "Energy Abyss"

neptunechimney wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

CritiKalbILL wrote: I understand you can't counter the article yourself...I'll wait for someone who can use logic and reason to make the argument for you.

And I'll wait until I get answer before I bother with another deflection.

Thank you for the response, it's classic.

Thank you for the non-answer...It's expected.

I've already caught you once today posting a chart that was a misrepresentation and a lie, stolen from another article and used to try to prove something that it had no bearing on. If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, I'm not going to spend my time trying separate your bullsh*t from fact when you don't even research it yourself before posting it.

CritiKalbILL wrote: Perhaps we could use this thread to educate ourselves on what an oil subsidy actually is and why getting rid of them would be good, bad, or make little difference. If any of you would like to counter this article, please do so...I'm all ears.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plu ... -question/

From what I can find an "oil subsidy" is just a liberal talking point for a tax break (if it envolves "big oil"). Your link clarifies that, so does this link.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/opinion-zone/2011/05/about-those-oil-company-subsidies/144608

A subsidy is when the government hands out money to someone. The Solyndra loan guarantee would qualify as an energy subsidy, I think.

A tax break is when someone pays less tax to the government than they otherwise would. It's not taking money away from the government, it's giving them less.

A loophole is a form of a tax break. And to at least partially allude to whatever LJ is asking over and over again, according to this article Microsoft and Google are among the worst 15 companies taking advantage of loopholes and tax breaks.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2011/03/27/15-tax-escape-artists.html#slide2

If they would have paid it otherwise, and they aren't, then it's money that didn't go to the government that otherwise would have. But I do love to watch you try to twist it into something else... Rave on....

"Tax escape artists" doesn't address the $4 Billion in tax subsidies that the oil companies are getting. I'll wait until you're ready to talk about the subject at hand instead of going off into the weeds trying to be right about something else.

LadyJazzer wrote: [I've already caught you once today posting a chart that was a misrepresentation and a lie, stolen from another article and used to try to prove something that it had no bearing on. If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, I'm not going to spend my time trying separate your bullsh*t from fact when you don't even research it yourself before posting it.

LOL. It was not stolen, it was sourced. That is one reason I did it. I knew Mother has more credibility with you. I do not see you disputing the #'s. Thanks for playing, have a nice day.

LadyJazzer wrote: If they would have paid it otherwise, and they aren't, then it's money that didn't go to the government that otherwise would have. But I do love to watch you try to twist it into something else... Rave on....

"Tax escape artists" doesn't address the $4 Billion in tax subsidies that the oil companies are getting. I'll wait until you're ready to talk about the subject at hand instead of going off into the weeds trying to be right about something else.

You are the one that defined a subsidy as giving money.

LadyJazzer wrote: And by the way, losing $60 Billion to "loopholes" is NOT the same thing as giving a $4 Billion SUBSIDY to the oil companies

Then you agree it's money that didn't go to the government that otherwise would of (i.e. a tax break or deduction).

Then you go back to calling it a subsidy again.

A subsidy is not the same as a tax break.

According to the links provided, oil companies are getting tax breaks (deductions) and not subsidies just as many other companies do. And if we can agree on that, then the tax escape artists article is also about companies taking advantage of tax breaks. No twisting necessary here other than getting dizzy watching you squirm.

My father-in-law's brother is a farmer in Eads Colorado, only he doesn't do much farming because he does get a REAL subsidy...and guess what, he's a 1%r two or three times over and contributes jack sh#t to society. But lets focus on liberal fairy tails that make us feel better. With all the crap these energy companies get, I'd love to see them strike and shut down for a week and watch the panic begin.

CritiKalbILL wrote: Perhaps we could use this thread to educate ourselves on what an oil subsidy actually is and why getting rid of them would be good, bad, or make little difference. If any of you would like to counter this article, please do so...I'm all ears.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plu ... -question/

Good article CBill, thanks for posting.

Mr. Barack must be squirming about the high gas prices because he spent Saturday blaming everyone else for it. Everyone was thinking 8% unemployment would sink obama. How about $6 gas and 10% unemployment. A new oil shock would cripple the current economy. And despite all the handouts, alternative energy isn't capable of replacing petrol right now.

Yep, its always comical watching the Democrats chant "drill baby drill" (into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves).

Yeah, the Dems are sure chanting "Drill, baby, drill"...

Here's what that stupid pipeline will do to you:

Keystone pipeline isn't cure for gas prices
The controversial link to bring oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico could raise prices at the gas pump, especially in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions.

"Rising gasoline prices have helped proponents of a controversial pipeline proposal press their case that the project would help ease supply bottlenecks and lower prices for consumers."

They’re half right.

The proposed pipeline would relieve a glut of crude oil backing up in the Midwest and redirect those barrels to Gulf of Mexico ports. From there they could be shipped to world markets and repriced at higher global prices. But that likely would mean higher prices for drivers in the nation's midsection, who currently are enjoying an unusual discount stemming from a lack of pipeline capacity.

That’s where the Keystone pipeline comes in. Proponents of the pipeline have argued it will help wean the U.S. off foreign imports and lower pump prices. But rather than pushing Gulf Coast prices lower, it will let oil producers charge more for their crude.

TransCanada Corp. estimates the pipeline would boost sales of Canadian-produced crude by $2 billion to $4 billion a year, according to an assessment submitted to Canada's National Energy Board.

“The prices for those crudes in North Dakota and Canada will fetch closer to Gulf Coast prices, which are tied into the higher international market price,” said Tim Hess, an Energy Department analyst.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... ump-prices


Gee, you can hear the surprise in *MY* voice... Let TransCanada charge more, "boost sales by $2-$4 Billion/ A YEAR"

And here's the GOP "job creator" knuckle-draggers: :Koolaid: :Koolaid: