Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Calls for End of Oil Subsidies

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:15 PM
Original message
Obama Calls for End of Oil Subsidies
Edited on Fri May-06-11 05:16 PM by kpete
Source: New York Times

May 6, 2011, 3:58 PM
Obama Calls for End of Oil Subsidies
By MARK LANDLER

With gasoline prices still hovering above $4 a gallon, President Obama renewed his call on Friday to close tax loopholes for large oil companies, declaring, If youre already paying them at the gas pump, we dont need to pay them through the tax code.


Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

President Obama toured Allison Transmission in Indianapolis to showcase energy-efficient technologies.
Mr. Obama traveled to Indiana to visit a company that makes hybrid vehicle transmissions to showcase his administrations commitment to fuel-efficient and clean-energy technologies. But he also took aim at the oil industry as the key beneficiary of the nations ravenous appetite for energy.

Over the last five years, Mr. Obama said, the five largest oil companies each earned between $75 billion and $125 billion. An array of tax breaks for the industry, he said, cost American taxpayers $5 billion annually. The president, calling these loopholes unwarranted subsidies, said the money should be redirected to investments in clean energy.

Mr. Obama offered a familiar list of incentives to draw people away from gas-guzzling vehicles, including a $75 tax rebate for those who buy electric vehicles. And he reiterated his goal that the federal governments vast fleet of vehicles use fuel-efficient, clean-energy technologies by 2015.

Read more: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/obama-cal... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. The GOP will fight to the death for Big Oil.
We all know that. I state the obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. The Grand Oil Party? Yep. I don't think the Dems will fight too hard for us either. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
45. Why didn't Obama mention this when he had the huge mandate after '08 election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #45
64. I'd also like to know the answer to that question - is this just more campaign rhetoric?
As they say, you can tell when a politician is lying: his mouth is moving.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #64
76. I get the feeling he was just stockpiling for re-election
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #76
87. His deal making on RENEWING the tax cuts for wealthy seem in conflict with his new viewpoint?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vt_native Donating Member (76 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Faygo
I agree, the first thing I thought of when I read the headline was the assasination of JFK, and how he was killed for opposing the CIA and other powerful right wing forces
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
54. Good. I hope they die. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
56. Of couse. And, obviously, "we all" includes President Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuttgart77 Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
79. $5 Billion is the equivalent of $16 per person, per year in the U.S.


5 Billion divided by 310 million.


Where are these oil subsidies? The President keeps talking about this, but he never mentions WHAT subsidies. What unwarrented "array" of tax breaks?

What are they and what are their names? How is he calculating them? Fine, kill the oil subsidies but at least explain what subsidies.



With government spending at the rate it is, we spend $5 billion in a few hours! http://www.usdebtclock.org



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabasco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #79
92. You sound like George AWOL Bush
"$5 billion dollars is chump change. Let's keep doling it out to my oil buddies."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuttgart77 Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Did you not hear me?
"Fine, kill the oil subsidies but at least explain what subsidies."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
era veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Give them hell Barack
They are running commercials on the TV claiming we are going to raise taxes and cause your gas prices to rise. The big oil sons of bitches need a windfall tax on them paying for alternate energy resource R&D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
5. Well, Good for Obama. Looks like he wants to serve a second term.
I hope he keeps up this aggressive stand on issues that are important for our company.

This is a welcome change of focus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WHEN CRABS ROAR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. Did you mean country? But I also understand the United
Corporate States Of America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
43. I did mean country. I wonder sometimes what is with my spelling
When I use Microsoft Word, I don't have this problem. When I'm on DU, I seem to type wrong words, misspell. I wonder sometimes why I do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodnews Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #43
81. For a minute I thought you were running a solar power company...
or something. }(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodnews Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. Call me skeptical. In reality he just gave oil a big boost
with the war in Libya. A war that translates into further expansion of foreign oil dependence.

Obama has a tendency to say one thing and do another, realizing that the original message that is covered in the MSM will not be followed up on with the same effect by the non-MSM. He like so many other politicoe-corporadoes knows the power of the first message.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. +1-- While he's in this mood, maybe someone should whisper MEDICARE FOR ALL in his ear?
Edited on Fri May-06-11 08:09 PM by defendandprotect
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
77. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. Too bad this won't go anywhere with this Congress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
37. That's why Obama can say it n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #37
46. +1 ---
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #37
55. +1. See also, stories at links in Reply # 50.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodnews Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
83. And that is the game he plays. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mucifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
7. I thought the house just voted to keep the loopholes. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. I wouldn't hold my breath.....
"tell 'um what they want to hear.. then do whatever you want to do".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. Gobama!
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. We could balance the budget by taxing oil company profits 50%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. We should confiscate their wealth given the environmental damage they've done to planet --!!
And the harm they've done to people all over the world --

They were only able to get away with their lies re Global Warming and confusing

and fooling the public because of the 50 year delay in our actually feeling the

effects of this damage!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
11. Great political initiative even if the congress doesn't act.
This issue will resonate with independents even if birthers and teabaggers won't support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
13. This is why oil is down 15% or so this week
to take this issue off the front burner. So they take some profits on their futures and let the price drift down until the heat's off again. They can always run it back up and do more profit taking later. And if all else fails, blame the Chinese.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
14. How will the the poor oil companies make it?
A great country must care for the underprivileged--it's a progressive value.

Just in case I need it...

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
15. Long overdue call, and I applaud it...
but this won't stand a snowball's chance in hell with Congress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
groundloop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Big oil must at least be worried, they're running a lot of TV ads
I normally wouldn't think this proposal would go anywhere in the Publican controlled House either, but it appears that big oil is spending major money on a TV ad campaign - "Don't let Obama and his people raise your gasoline taxes".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #18
63. Raising taxes on gasoline consumers pay at the pump is a different issue entirely
from cutting the tax subsidies oil companies enjoy when they fill out their tax forms.

The only similarity I see offhand is that Republicans are not likely to pass either. No clue what Democrats would do, if they could, but I do know they controlled Congress (as much as anyone can nowadays) from 2006 until 2010 and the subsidies appear to be alive and well as we post.

See also Reply 57.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DRex Donating Member (531 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
16. 'Bout Time! K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoccoR5955 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
17. About time... Too bad the Grand Oil Party will never go for it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
19. FDR should have NATIONALIZED oil in the 1940's .... unfortunately,
Edited on Fri May-06-11 07:59 PM by defendandprotect
he asked LBJ for his opinion on it and guess what LBJ said ... !!!

:evilgrin:


Democratic Party Platform which JFK ran on called for NATIONALIZING the oil

industry -- and he didn't live to pursue that!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muskypundit Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
49. Is there a link to he wanted to nationalize?
I pulled up the 1960 dem platform and it said nothing on nationalization. There was something about him cutting tax incentives for them right before he was killed.

I would love to see evidence he wanted to nationalize. It would give me evidence to show how unacceptably to the right the debate has shifted. Something like "JFK - lets nationalize oil. Obama - lets stop giving oil companies your tax dollars? no? Ok."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. Something like nationalizing oil would not likely have been part of any
Edited on Sat May-07-11 06:02 AM by No Elephants
formal party platform, so I would not take that literally. (Maybe the poster meant JFK said or threatened it while he ran for President?)

Also, not everything is on the free internet, even though it sometimes sees that way. Poster may have read that in a book or once heard someone from FDR's administration speak.

Not saying the other poster's assertions are accurate or not, 'cause I have no knowledge about the info referred to.

" It would give me evidence to show how unacceptably to the right the debate has shifted."

See the links in Inna's reply, below.

Also, I've bee thinking green energy subsidies may be the new oil subsidies. We all like to hear "green," so we don't mind them. However, it's a very similar principle: pay folks to try tp make private money from something like wind, without holding them
accountabble for very much.

I haven't really developed my thinking on that yet, though, so I probably should not be posting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #51
89. Re your comments ...
Re FDR I did read it in a book -- don't recall which right now --

As for JFK, I also read that -- and checked it with someone afterwards --

and it was positive for being in the 1960 platform --

ALSO, you may note my other post where I am relating that this has just been

recently discussed here -- and another poster confirmed it from the 1960 Platform.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #49
65. I did a (very) little poking around. This link says
Truman revived an idea of FDR's, namely putting the continental shelf under the Department of Defense because its oil was crucial to national security. http://www.sott.net/articles/show/124997-John-F-Kennedy...

Elsewhere, I saw Roosevelt had urged U.S. oil companies to coe to an accommodation with Mexico when Mexico nationalized its oil. That's as close as I've come so far, but, again, I poked around only a little bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #49
88. We've just recently had this go-around here -- and someone did pull it up ...
Generally, however, my info comes from books -- and it's something I've read

and checked a long time ago -- re both FDR and JFK --

JFK was also after ending the oil depletion allowance --

Again -- whatever info was recently found by someone here was in the 1960 Platform --

IMO, ALL natural resources should be under national control -- they are part of the

Commonwealth and not anything that should be in the hands of private interests!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
23. "unwarranted subsidies" means nothing to the low-informed. Call them BigOil Bailouts
THAT might get through the brains of those who follow Glen Blech, DrugRush, and Boner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
24. "...close tax loopholes for large oil companies..."
....that's it!....that's all!....man, that's too little, too late....this baby-step wouldn't even make a good beginning....

....how about starting with busting-up the oil monopolies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beartracks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
25. $75?? Is that all?
Sorry, I guess I've always just thought it was bigger.

---------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohbill Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Typo on NY Times part.
The actual tax credit is $7500, and supposedly the Federal government will just give you the money right at the dealership when you buy an electric car.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beartracks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Wait -- so by tax credit, you mean...
... that your tax liability itself is reduced by $7,500 (e.g. instead of owing $8,000 in taxes, now I just owe $500)? And that in practice they simply knock $7,500 off the price of the car???

------------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohbill Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. It's a tax "credit", so it's not necessarily free money.
The IRS gives more details about the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Credit here:

Plug-In Electric Vehicle Credit (IRC 30 and IRC 30D)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beartracks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Cool, thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
26. Good luck with that - it ain't gonna happen unless we take back the House...
...and fire a few oil whore Dems while we're at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
27. The Big Oil Party will not allow this to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
28. Source is wrong: it's not $75 tax rebate, it's "Up to $7500" tax rebate to buy an electric car
And that is only the federal incentive.
"For Cars

$2,500 to $7,500 tax credit, depending on size of battery (4 kWh to 16 kWh), for electric-drive vehicles (EVs and PHEVs) sold after December 31, 2008. This is the best and biggest new incentive brought on by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus bill), and applies to at least 200,000 units per auto manufacturer before it phases out."
...from http://www.pluginamerica.org/why-plug-vehicles/state-fe...

For example: the upcoming plug-in Toyota Prius will get you about $3000 tax rebate from the feds while a Chevy Volt or Nissan Leaf will get you the full $7500.

But it doesn't stop at the federal level. Many states (not mine so far (bummer)) offer additional incentives.

Colorado is highest at $6000 (so you add the state incentive and federal incentive, total of $13,500)
Next at $5000 state incentive are California, Oregon, and Georgia. (Georgia!!!!)

You can read the full text at the above link for Plug In America for which states give you carpool lane access, tax rebates on the cost of the charger. Some states even waive all sales tax if you buy an electric vehicle!

:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronicNews Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. Thanks for posting this-
$75 Didn't sound like a very good incentive-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #36
62. I know, right? In many parts of the nation you can't bring the family out to dinner for $75
I'm sure it was just a typo in the original source... but I felt it (the typo) was bad enough to bring to DU's attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moostache Donating Member (905 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
30. Good start....noiw stick with it and then head down to Florida...
kick Rick Scott squarely in the head and DEMAND that the high-speed rail projects be re-instated and make a fucking example of that criminal motherfucker with a viscous snarl to the camera that says "Walker, you're punk ass is next bitch!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angel2 Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #30
73. Right! Mustache!
Like the rest of the nation, Florida Democrats didn't vote, thus we got, 'the criminal Scott'. Lots of mistakes were made, but I don't think that Floridian Democrats are stupid enough to repeat them for 2012, I make every union demo I can to let Rick know what I think about him. Darlene
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
31. !
K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
32. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rage for Order Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
33. I knew he was a traitor!!!!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #33
57. Waiting to see what actually happens (if anything) may be prudent.
Edited on Sat May-07-11 06:39 AM by No Elephants
As Reply 44. and others on this thread point out, Obama did not run on this or try cutting oil subsidies when he had the House and almost 60 votes in the Senate.

With the House now being solidly Republican, this has become a very safe thing for Obama to say (see Reply 37 and others), as well as good for campaign mode, especially when the WH is proposing cutting corporate taxes in general. See links in Reply 50.

So, waiting to see what actually happens (if anything) before either kvelling or kvetching may be the wisest course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronicNews Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
35. Really?
Rhetoric or real leadership?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
38. They're sucking us dry & add in the speculators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKDem08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
40. WHAT A DARING STANCE!! : /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-11 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
41. Remember "Any bill I sign must include a public option"?
Edited on Fri May-06-11 11:38 PM by MannyGoldstein
Is that you, CandidateObama? Want to get re-elected so you can give trillions more of middle-class tax dollars to bankers?

Time to put on your comfortable shoes, methinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
44. Obama in campaign mode
it's nice to see, but with a Republican House, he, I, and anyone with sense knows that this won't translate to actual law.

Mark this under: shit he should have been saying from Day One.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #44
47. Yup. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tripod Donating Member (534 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
48. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 03:30 AM
Response to Original message
50. actually, uh, no. what obama is doing is slashing corporate taxes (that's the plan,

anyway) while using ridiculous smokescreen 'justifications'/"shiny objects" to distract the gullible. :shrug:

pretty radical fucking agenda, actually. (but hey, apparently half the nation believes that he is a "socialist"! :sarcasm: )

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/05-9

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704810504...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. WOW. Thanks for those links.
I can hardly wait to read specifics about the new tax code Republican Timmeh wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PuffedMica Donating Member (584 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 05:28 AM
Response to Original message
52. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shadowflash Donating Member (180 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
58. Woo Hoo!
$75.00!!

I'm on my way to the dealer now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #58
66. That was a typo from the source article
I posted a useful link with the real info on federal and state incentives for buying an electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid.

See post #28: (here's a direct link to it)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sirveri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:37 AM
Response to Original message
59. Watch them use this as an excuse to raise prices.
You cut our subsidies, so we have to raise our prices to compensate (ignore the huge profits we typically enjoy).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 06:51 AM
Response to Original message
60. Good, now let's see what Congress will do with this.
We know the republicans won't support it, let's see how many dems do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
61. if the republicans don't kill this, the opec nations will
f up our economy the way i always believed they did to jimmy carter. gas prices will hit $8 and the recovery will be over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
russspeakeasy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
67. Now the commodities. Corn and wheat prices have doubled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
90-percent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
68. Obama is right, of course
But my fundamental concern is if Obama truly corrects all the heinous corporate take over of government, that the POWERS THAT BE will apply some JFK/RFK/MLK SECOND AMENDMENT SOLUTIONS to our beautiful President?

How long would these sociopaths let Obama live if he started channeling FDR all the time?

-90% Jimmy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
69. The solution to high prices at the pump is to do something that will increase prices at the pump
Edited on Sat May-07-11 09:35 AM by slackmaster
It will all work out when we develop alternative energy technologies that cost more than fossil fuels to produce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madville Donating Member (743 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. To recoup that 5 billion all they have to do
To recoup that annual 5 billion all the oil companies have to do is add $0.04 to each gallon of gas. We aren't even talking about the thoudands of other products they produce from crude oil(lubricants, plastics, fertilizers, etc). A penny here and a penny there they will double their profits under the guise of their new "tax increase" and the consumer will fund it.

At least when they are getting subsidies it is imaginary deficit money, cut them out or raise taxes and the costs get passed on to and come out of the consumers' pockets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
71. Ah, he's too good at this. He'll probably get re-elected. -nt-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angel2 Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
72. Hope it's a beginning--
Beginning to tax the [b]RICH[/b]  for a change we can believe
in!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
74. Oh, yeah, Congress will jump on that. NOT. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
75. $5B - how many schools could that help?
or teachers could it hire? How many could get into low income housing? And for the oil companies it would just mean more bonuses, expensive cars, trips, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
78. Now THAT'S the Obama I voted for
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
80. It sounds good but I dont think it is possible. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
84. About time. I have ZERO confidence this will ever happen, but people
are in support of it now. Americans by and large do realize how crazy this is. Ron Johnson, our new idiot Senator in WI, has been out on the front page of all the papers saying they need that money to expand drilling in the U.S., purportedly to "get us off foreign oil". Of course, he fails to mention the global economics of that: in a global oil market, that oil ain't ours!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodnews Donating Member (207 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
85. He says one thing and does another. His "splendid" little war with
Libya and the continuation of Bushboys wars translates into further expansion of foreign oil dependence. This is what he is REALLY doing.

Obama has a tendency to say one thing and do another, realizing that the original message that is covered in the MSM will not be followed up on with the same effect by the non-MSM. He like so many other politicoe-corporadoes knows the power of the first message.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
86. We should institute an emergency oil profits tax.
90% of all oil profits are taxed and then re-appropriated to lower prices at the pump. Exxon made what? $16.2 billion in the 1Q alone? I think they'll survive with $1.62 billion instead and the rest can go towards an overall rebate for gas station owners to collect based on how much they lower their prices.

Sounds reasonable to me. No more gouging or profiteering at the expense of the welfare of our economy.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lindsey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. If anyone can do it, President Obama can. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuttgart77 Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #86
91.  That would result in oil drying up for the entire U.S.
Edited on Sat May-07-11 07:28 PM by Stuttgart77
Our economy would come to a screeching halt.

Oil is a commodity and there isn't enough to fill demand in the world today. If a 90% tax were implemented, all U.S. oil companies and supporting refinery companies would close shop here and move overseas. Unemployment would rise dramatically from all the people unemployed in the oil industry and all other industries, because we all have to get to work, transport food, etc. Any oil on the high seas would be directed to other countries instead of us. Since we don't drill as much here as we used to (we've closed many fields off of the coast of California, Virginia and the Gulf and many sites on land), we'd be screwed! You can't turn on those oil wells overnight. Plus, the U.S. dollar isn't nearly as strong as it used to be, so oil producers around the world would be happy to take other countries' currencies over our weak dollar without a 90% penalty. They can do better elsewhere in the world. A 90% tax would push global investors over the edge and out of our markets.

We're not ready to transition over to another form of energy for transportation overnight. You are right, there would be no profiteering. The U.S. would be in a massive depression. Other countries less so.

Careful what you wish for; this is a global economy and we don't have nearly the leverage you think we do. The economics of such a tax are a bad idea.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #91
96. They can't win that war really.
Let's remember something here, we could just as easily nationalize fuel distribution in this country by buying up barrels of oil ourselves and once these companies leave the US using those wonderful government takeovers of land to basically take back the refineries here on US soil. We could re-employ all Americans put out of work by such nonsense as well.

Or we could impose tariffs so damn high that we still make up the difference.

Even with India and China growing in terms of oil usage, no company will want to fuck with us and cut themselves off from their biggest source of demand and sales.

It's a game of chicken and if they play it they might as well go out of business.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuttgart77 Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #96
97. Of course they can't win it.
Edited on Sun May-08-11 11:13 AM by Stuttgart77
No one can. You end up hurting everyone if you nationalize it. You hurt a few rich oil executives and millions of middle class and lower middle class.

Where do you think the stocks in companies like Exxon and Texaco are invested?
In pension funds, retirement funds, mutual funds and people's 401K's and IRA's. Not just the rich have those.

What are you going to re-employ Americans with? You gonna pay them with worthless U.S. dollars? Because everyone will be dumping the USD if you nationalize or even threaten to.
Just tell me how many people around the world hold the currency or even want to hold the currency of North Korea, Cuba, Nigeria, Iran, etc?

As for imposing tariffs, you wouldn't need to. No one would want to do business with us in the first place. This sounds like a suicide mission!

Bad idea. Bad economics. No thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. Do you understand Supply and Demand?
America has the greatest demand for their product on Earth and you think some tariffs would stop them from selling here all together? Not a chance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stuttgart77 Donating Member (58 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #98
99. Do you understand less world demand for the U.S. Dollar?
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/04/29/opinion/The-...

"It is unclear how Bernanke will dismount from the tiger's back by June. If he continues with the monetary inflation policy, the US dollar will continue to plunge and risk losing its world currency reserve status. If he stops writing the cheques, interest rates will certainly rise and a liquidity crunch will ensue, which would stall the US economy.

China, Russia and the other BRIC countries, as well as the oil exporting nations, are contemplating how to move away from US dollar transactions. Holding the dollar will pose a risk of further losses because of the US's continuing monetary inflation to debase the currency, and the murky prospects of the US in bringing down its budget deficits and also long-term debt to the tune of $70 trillion to $200 trillion.

On April 23, Tang Shuangning, chairman of China Everbright Group, said China should reduce its excessive foreign exchange reserves and further diversify its holdings. He suggested that the amount of foreign exchange reserves should be restricted to between $800 billion and $1.3 trillion. China's foreign exchange reserves increased by $197.4 billion in the first three months of this year to $3.04 trillion."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
93. kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hieronymus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-11 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
95. It's about time to start to end corporate welfare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-09-11 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
100. Kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 30th 2014, 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC