Replies

I hate it, but I actually agree with the clown in the article on one point. Stopped clock, blind squirrel, etc etc etc.

IMO, we don't need to be subsidizing oil companies to the tune of 40 Billion (or whatever, that sounds like a number pulled from thin air).

I think that we also don't need to be subsidizing Solar, wind, or whatever other energy, either. But I'd doubt this liberal fool would agree with me on that point.

we don't need to be subsidizing oil companies

Since oil companies pay more in taxes than they get to keep in profits, how is the claim of subsidizing true? It is only a liberal word game made up to get you to support higher taxes.

If we double your taxes, add a few special taxes for the work only you do, then offer a 5% tax credit, can we claim you are also subsidized?

"IMO, we don't need to be subsidizing oil companies to the tune of 40 Billion (or whatever, that sounds like a number pulled from thin air)."

(1) They're not subsidies, they're normal tax deductions (mostly). See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2713591/posts

(2) The number is $4 billion, not $40 billion.

(3) The ROI for oil companies is pathetic, about 8%. Most industries have a MUCH higher ROI. So let's cut that further and then be "surprised" when we have an "unexpected" energy shortage. That will help the economy!

(4) Yeah, let's raise the cost of energy MORE right now. THAT will help the economy. Oh, we can stop the eeevviiilllll oil companies from passing these taxes INCREASES (not cuts in subsidies -- that's obamaspeak) on to us? Sure, if we NATIONALIZE them, which is the real goal here.

So no, the clown in the article is dead wrong on this point, too. Obastard already has effectively nationalized auto manufacturing and health care, so the next big target is energy.