Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton says Obama voted for oil firm tax breaks

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:39 PM
Original message
Clinton says Obama voted for oil firm tax breaks
PITTSBURGH, March 14 (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Clinton on Friday renewed her attack on oil company profits and accused Sen. Barack Obama, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, of supporting tax breaks for oil companies.

snip

Citing Exxon Mobil Corp's latest annual profit of $40 billion, Clinton said that as president, she would require oil companies to invest in alternative forms of energy or else be subject to a windfall profits tax.

snip

Development of alternative energy sources and the promotion of energy independence could generate 5 million new jobs in the next 10 years, she added.

snip

"You will not catch me as your president holding hands with the Saudis," she said. "I will be holding them accountable."

--------------
If you read the whole article, would you please tell me what you think of the last paragraph? It seems to not really fit with the rest of the story very well.

Link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ELECTU/idUSN146389252008...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BeatleBoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. I know Obama Sided with Dick Cheney on the Cheney Energy Plan
I think of that everytime I pump gas.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golddigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yep, just went and filled up a few minutes ago, cursing Cheney and the Obama horse he rode in on!!!
:mad: :nuke: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
31. Lol.
Well played.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drachasor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. Which resulted in oil companies having to pay more money than they got in breaks
Hillary's attack is FUD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. Tell Hillary this please
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #26
39. LOL- oil companies paid more? - only on Fox News is that claim made - which of these tax cuts did
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 10:20 PM by papau
Exxon and the rest of the energy companies not get a piece of

CBO and the Joint Committee on
Taxation estimate that the legislation would reduce revenues by $7.9 billion
over the 2005-2010 period and by $12.3 billion over the 2005-2015 period. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase net revenues by $75 million in 2006. The bill also could affect governmental receipts and direct spending by establishing and increasing certain civil and criminal penalties. CBO estimates that any resulting increase in receipts and spending would be less than $500,000 annually
summarized
* $4.3 billion for nuclear power
* $2.8 billion for fossil fuel production
* $2.7 billion to extend the renewable electricity production credit
* $1.6 billion in tax incentives for investments in clean coal facilities
* $1.3 billion for conservation and energy efficiency
* $1.3 billion for alternative motor vehicles and fuels (ethanol, methane, liquified natural gas, propane)


As "oil companies" include the 2.8B, a piece of the 4 B (2.7 renewable plus 1.3 ethanol), some have clean coal testing interests, as conservation/energy eff goes to all companies - how the heck are the fact check numbers arrived at ?? - they sure differ from CBO numbers



indeed the CRC DOES NOT SAY WHAT FACT CHECK SAYS THEY SAY:

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm?NLEid=50...
The House and Senate have approved the conference report on H.R. 6, which provides for a net energy tax cut of $11.5 billion ($14.5 billion gross energy tax cuts, less $3 billion of energy taxes). This bill was signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The tax reconciliation bill recently signed by the President includes relatively minor tax increases on major integrated oil companies through a slowing down of the amortization of some oil and gas exploration costs.

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/06may/IB10054.... = ACTUAL REPORT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeatleBoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. Thank you!
Great post, great links!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeatleBoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #26
49. Rush Limbaugh Agrees with You!







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. No Hillary,
The Saudi King won't hold hands with a woman, even if she is the President. But, I'm sure Bill will stand in for ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. uh oh, someone's going to find a photo of the Clintons with some Saudis
and off we'll go again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. LOL, yeah, not the smartest thing for her to say, but DUMBY vote for Barak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. wait a minute, what about the library stuff? she should avoid bringing up the Saudis!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...


Bill Clinton's presidential library raised more than 10 percent of the cost of its $165 million facility from foreign sources, with the most generous overseas donation coming from Saudi Arabia, according to interviews yesterday.

The royal family of Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton facility in Little Rock about $10 million, roughly the same amount it gave toward the presidential library of George H.W. Bush, according to people directly familiar with the contributions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. I'd like a law regulating the fundraising for presidential libraries.
Put a cap on the size of donations, for starters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. What bill #?
More info please...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. She'll hold them accountable? LOL
She's just telling the crowd what they want to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. How do you feel about Obama's vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. It doesn't bother me as much as Hillary's IWR vote
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 04:55 PM by sparosnare
and how she's handled explaining it. It's the biggest reason I could never support her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I realize that you do not like Clinton.
How do you feel about Obama's vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. His vote doesn't bother me.
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 05:07 PM by sparosnare
Lieberman (mentor) and being a midwest senator (constituency) the biggest reasons why he did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ROakes1019 Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. fact check
Dan Abrams said that the energy bill actually raised taxes on oil companies with the those taxes to go toward alternative energy. How does Hillary keep getting away with this lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Fact Check does put a different light on it.
Unless she is talking about another bill, but I don't know which one that would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spotbird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. She lies,
this is just another example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #22
40. the 2005 bill was all give away as pointed out upthread - CBO confirmed this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. Great, since hillary is LYING about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. Midwestern Senators have to vote for any bill with "ethanol."
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 04:55 PM by Eric J in MN
The vote was 74-26, with Russ Feingold as the only midwestern Senator to vote No.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

If Hillary Clinton thinks it's a bad bill, then she has a right to criticize Obama for voting for it, but I don't think Obama's vote means that he'll be pushing for tax breaks for oil companies if he becomes president. (Assuming that is a fair description of the bill.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. Fact Check: Oil & gas giveaways stripped from final Bill
The bill provided incentives for "clean coal", alt fuels, energy efficient cars, homes...

On Energy & Oil: FactCheck: Oil & gas giveaways stripped from final 2005 Bill


While it's true that Republican lawmakers had once considered large tax breaks for oil and gas companies in the bill, the biggest of them had been stripped out of the bill by the time it passed.

It's true that the Energy Policy Act contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most went to electric utilities for such things as incentives for new transmission lines & "clean coal" facilities, and also for incentives for alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes.

The bill did give $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, but those were offset by $2.9 billion in tax increases



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drachasor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. Every time someone posts one of these attacks by Hillary, someone points this out
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 05:14 PM by Drachasor
Why don't the Hillary supporters as a whole ever get the message? This thread is full of people acting like her attack has some basis in reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
29. Hey...there is no such thing as "clean coal" just topped off
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 05:18 PM by mac2
mountains in WV. The coal burning plants cause acid rain in the Smokies. That big plume of coal smoke from China crossed the Pacific and caused pollution problems in the North West coast.

Those huge old forest trees are dying in Asheville, NC. Because of their weakness many just pulled out of the ground when they had that 10" rain a few years ago. I couldn't believe how big they were. Not like the huge Redwoods but pretty big around.

A dead tree makes me sad. I don't know why but it does. They do have a life cycle but who knows how old they should be when many are downed or die before their time.

In the Adirondack area of NY State there are still some old growth forest. It is a wonder because at the turn of the century they cut many of them down. The rains then came and washed the earth down on to the highways and towns. NY State then made the mountains parkland and allowed development in the valleys.

A bunch of MW Oak trees are really very beautiful. A hospital near me has preserved a couple acres of them. The new addition features a huge glass complex which look out over them. It's very relaxing and adds a natural touch to the complex.

What goes around comes around and back again. The winds carry pollution around the earth. We can't expect the winds to just blow polltion away. The coal burning in the MW causes acid rain in the NE Adirondack lakes.

Obama and Durbin are just pulling our leg about "clean coal" because they mine it in S. Illinois. It's not a lie made up by any candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drachasor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. The objective of clean coal is to scrub out the pollutants in the exhaust of coal plants
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 05:18 PM by Drachasor
There are a lot of problems to be overcome, but some progress has been made and will be made. It isn't as good as other energy sources in a number of ways, but barring nuclear power coal and oil are a necessities.

Well, also storing C02 exhaust is another factor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Nothing "clean" about coal
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 05:33 PM by mac2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. HILLARY is a FRIGGIN LIAR!!!
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 04:52 PM by ProSense
:) Well she is!

In closing, we'd just note that Clinton is no innocent on sending out misleading mailers. We reported on Feb. 6 that a mailing by her campaign contained a "big distortion" of Obama's position on Social Security taxes and falsely implied that he had "no plan" to address mortgage foreclosures. It also attacked him for voting for a "Dick Cheney" energy bill that gave "huge tax breaks to oil companies," when in fact the bill gave a net tax increase to oil companies.

link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. What bill #? Do you mean the bill that the Apollo Alliance supported?
If so, she voted for it too. This is not a new ploy, attacking him for voting for bills that she also supported.

Some cynically pretend that the bills are one item only, and dig one pbjectionable item out of a good bill. I don't like tax breaks for oil companies either, other than for clean energy (which I define as NOT ethanol, NOT coal gasification, NOT black (fossil fuel derived) hydrogen. But I'm not in the Senate duking it out on these bills, and I'm not running for pres, so we have to pick from our existing candidates. :)

"Apollo Celebrates Passage of Energy Bill

The Apollo Alliance hailed the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act in Congress as a major milestone on Americas path to a clean energy economy. The bill includes historic measures to make commercial and federal buildings more energy efficient, help automakers retool their production lines and provide green-collar job training." http://www.apolloalliance.org /

From the Apollo Alliance:

State and Local Apollo
Energy Bill Spurs Growth of Americas Clean Economy

Washington, DC The Apollo Alliance today hailed the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act as a major milestone on Americas path to a clean energy economy. The bill includes historic measures to:

* Improve the energy efficiency of buildings and industry across America, increasing the productivity of the U.S. economy, creating new jobs, and saving money for American businesses and consumers;

* Help domestic automakers retool their production lines to build more efficient vehicles, create good jobs, and speed development of a new generation of a electric vehicles;

* Provide $125 million annually to support training for green-collar jobs and prepare low-income workers for emerging opportunities in the clean energy economy.

With the commitment to energy saving technology and new training for green-collar workers, Congress has taken its boldest step yet toward a clean energy economy, said new Apollo Alliance Chairman Phil Angelides. Clearly reducing our dependence on oil, protecting our environment and modernizing our energy economy all go hand in hand.

Congress just made a major down payment to rebuild our economy clean and green, said Jerome Ringo, President of the Apollo Alliance. We thank the cosponsors Sens. Clinton (D-NY), Sanders (D-VT) and Reps. Solis (D-CA) and Tierney (D-MA) for their strong leadership on green collar jobs in America.
How the Energy Bill Will Boost Americas Clean Energy Economy

Creating the Next Generation of Cars and Domestic Jobs
In addition to setting new mileage standards, Congress required automakers to produce smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles in the United States, increasing the job security of tens of thousands of American workers who assemble and produce parts for these vehicles. In addition, Congress authorized incentives to help domestic automakers retool to build a new generation of more efficient vehicles. Finally, the Energy Independence Act provides funding to spur the development of next generation electric-drive vehicles in America.

Energy Savings for American Consumers and Businesses
Efficiency provisions in the Energy Independence and Security Act will save US consumers and businesses more than $400 billion by 2030, according to the American Council on an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE). The bill includes new efficiency standards for lighting, appliances and other products; new initiatives to reduce energy use in commercial and federal buildings and industrial processes. Altogether, the energy savings amount to three times the savings provided in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, according to ACEEE. The bills efficiency provisions will create thousands of jobs for electricians, boilermakers, sheet-metal workers, engineers, designers. It will also boost manufacturing of products from advanced air conditioners, to boilers, windows and insulation.

Training for Green-Collar Jobs
The Energy Independence Act authorizes $125 million annually for a pilot program to train workers to build wind farms and other renewable energy systems; install energy-saving products; and manufacture new clean energy technology. Of that, $25 million would be directed to a new program to give low-income workers the skills they need to follow a pathway out of poverty into the emerging clean energy economy. These workforce provisions were sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Clinton (D-NY) and Sanders (D-VT) and in the House by Reps. Solis (D-CA) and Tierney (D-MA).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. She's probably referring to the 2005 Energy Bill,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. That bill rasied taxes on oil companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
14. There's hypocrisy for you
Neither one of them have shown a whole lot of spine in dealing with Big Oil.

Then again, they wouldn't have been allowed to get to where they are if they hadn't bent over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drachasor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
30. Check out this thread or just go to Factcheck.org. This story is a lie
The bill had a net increase in the taxes of oil companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Will check it out. Thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
41. the 2005 bill was all give away per CBO - as pointed out upthread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
21. LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE BALD FACED LIE
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 05:09 PM by Political Heretic
The only evidence she presents is that he voted for the Energy Bill. It included tax subsidies in certain areas for Big Oil, but the overall bill itself

RAISED TOTAL TAXES ON OIL COMPANIES - THAT'S NOT A TAX "BREAK" THAT'S A TAX INCREASE



Which is why he voted for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
28. Hey, Should Obama now come out and throw a fit and wave transcripts shouting SHAME ON YOU CLINTON
Since she is telling pure lies about his votes?

Kind of hard to take that high ground there Hillary, after the low-ball scum sucking sleeze fest of a campaign you've allowed your staff to run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
33. This is old recycled news, somewhat debunked by factcheck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. but CBO says Congressional Research Service tax increase number does not exist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. I don't know what you are talking about, but I am guessing
it is a question about some of the provisions in the Energy bill. It is beyond me to read it or go over more than a summary of details, but the brief summary would be that it results in a net tax increase for the oil producing companies.

If it is some bill other than the Energy Bill of 2007, which is what Hillary is referring to, explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. wrong - Fact check asserts "increase based on CRC report" - but CRC does not say increase - just
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 10:46 PM by papau
give aways

the link to the actual report on 2005 Energy Bill is above - as is the CBO numbers - that agree with CRC

Fact Check is wrong re 2005 Energy Bill - irony - but they are wrong

As to "2007 Energy Bill" - sorry - but the discussion is about Obama's vote on HR6 - THE 2005 Energy Bill


During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects. The loan guarantees were called one of the worst provisions in this massive piece of legislation by Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste; the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.

Since arriving on Capitol Hill, Obama has been as assiduous as any member of Congress in promoting ethanol. He has introduced a number of measures that benefit the industrysuch as the Obama Amendment that offered oil companies a 50 percent tax credit for building stations that offer E85 fueland voted for the corporate-welfare-laden 2005 energy bill, which offered billions in subsidies to ethanol producers as well as lavish incentives for developing cars that run on alternative fuels.


ADM has apparently not contributed money to Obama, but during his first year in office he traveled on the companys private jets at least twice. All told, Obama took twenty-three flights on corporate planes; after some atypically bad press for accepting the flights, Obama imposed a ban at his office on privately subsidized travel.http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. My bad on the year, but this is what I am looking at:
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 10:49 PM by bhikkhu
"On Energy & Oil: FactCheck: Oil & gas giveaways stripped from final 2005 Bill
Obama and Clinton dueled over the 2005 energy bill, but Clinton repeated her misleading claims. Clinton said, "It's well accepted that the 2005 energy bill was the Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill. It was written by lobbyists. It was championed by Dick Cheney. It wasn't just the green light that it gave to more nuclear power. It had enormous giveaways to the oil and gas industries."

While it's true that Republican lawmakers had once considered large tax breaks for oil and gas companies in the bill, the biggest of them had been stripped out of the bill by the time it passed.

It's true that the Energy Policy Act contained $14.3 billion in tax breaks, but most went to electric utilities for such things as incentives for new transmission lines & "clean coal" facilities, and also for incentives for alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy efficient cars and homes.

The bill did give $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, but those were offset by $2.9 billion in tax increases.
Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 16, 2008"


The "give-aways" were stripped out. Those were the bad things, the big breaks for oil and gas companies that Cheney wanted. The balance of the rest was a tax increase.

As it says, some big breaks were left in, but they had nothing to do with the oil and gas companies as Hillary apparently claimed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
35. Poor poor pitiful, hilary..nothing's sticking but
she keeps blowing hot fetid air.. swingin' her mace with all she's got.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
38. The last paragraph?
(Since this claim has already been debunked as a campaign lie.)

"Lindsey Davis, 26, said before the speech she hadn't made up her mind which Democrat to vote for, and wanted to hear Clinton's views on the economy, Iraq and gay rights. (Editing by Doina Chiacu and Eric Walsh)"

I'm somewhat surprised there are folks who still don't have enough information to make a decision, but at 26, they may be struggling with new jobs, kids, etc. and not have the same free time to educate themselves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
44. cLINTON SPOKE TRUTH = LINKS BELOW - Fact check is wrong
Exxon and the rest of the energy companies not get a piece of

CBO and the Joint Committee on
Taxation estimate that the legislation would reduce revenues by $7.9 billion
over the 2005-2010 period and by $12.3 billion over the 2005-2015 period. CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase net revenues by $75 million in 2006. The bill also could affect governmental receipts and direct spending by establishing and increasing certain civil and criminal penalties. CBO estimates that any resulting increase in receipts and spending would be less than $500,000 annually
summarized
* $4.3 billion for nuclear power
* $2.8 billion for fossil fuel production
* $2.7 billion to extend the renewable electricity production credit
* $1.6 billion in tax incentives for investments in clean coal facilities
* $1.3 billion for conservation and energy efficiency
* $1.3 billion for alternative motor vehicles and fuels (ethanol, methane, liquified natural gas, propane)


As "oil companies" include the 2.8B, a piece of the 4 B (2.7 renewable plus 1.3 ethanol), some have clean coal testing interests, as conservation/energy eff goes to all companies - how the heck are the fact check numbers arrived at ?? - they sure differ from CBO numbers



indeed the CRC DOES NOT SAY WHAT FACT CHECK SAYS THEY SAY:

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm?NLEid=50...
The House and Senate have approved the conference report on H.R. 6, which provides for a net energy tax cut of $11.5 billion ($14.5 billion gross energy tax cuts, less $3 billion of energy taxes). This bill was signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005 (P.L. 109-58). The tax reconciliation bill recently signed by the President includes relatively minor tax increases on major integrated oil companies through a slowing down of the amortization of some oil and gas exploration costs.

http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/06may/IB10054.... = ACTUAL REPORT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pdxmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
45. Factcheck.org has called Clinton on this distortion three separate times and
she still continues to spread it. One other thing that I didn't know when looking at FactCheck was that Clinton did vote for the original bill, just not the markup. So I find her current position somewhat disingenuous.
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 Tue Jul 29th 2014, 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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