Author Topic: Obummer, NO to pipeline may cost us over 100,00 jobs and $billions in revenues. (Read 3593 times)

gypsyman · « **Reply #60 on:** January 26, 2012, 01:59:45 AM »

To anybody that thinks playing politics with a thing like this pipeline,is a good thing, better pull their head out of whatever hole it's in, and see the facts. London quite possibly is going to have a serious shortage of oil(gas), lets see how that works out. It's not the rich guys that are going to riot in the streets because their welfare check doesn't buy as much food when a can of corn is $2, and a loaf of bread is $3-$4. Obama is doing just that. Playing politics, hoping that he can push things to the brink, and then have big brother govt. come in and save us. He might just find out that he bite off more than he can chew. This 1 item, will really hurt him next summer when the election gets really rolling. Anybody, and I mean anybody, that's the Republican front runner, will throw this back in his face big time. He had 6-8 months to get the ball rolling and create jobs, and he's dancing on the end of the strings like a good puppet. gypsyman

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #61 on:** January 26, 2012, 08:42:24 AM »

I don't know what liberal wrote the Cornell report, but it is a croc. Pipelines do not go UNDER HOMES AND BUSINESSES. They are usually in an easement or right of way about 50-60' wide. Now, someone may build next to one. However, oil don't explode, gas will, but oil only burns. It WILL NOT burn inside the pipeline. With valves every so often, it can be shut down in a leak. This will be NEW construction. Mains are coated today to AVOID corrosion. What about the heavy equipment operators, welders, inspectors, surveyors, landscapers, lawyers, etc building the pipeline and handling the paperwork. What about the permanent jobs created for OPERATING the pipeline. There will be temporary jobs along the route while it is being constructed for hotel stays, restaurant to feed the guys, and other things. Yes there can be accidents, but so is 50,000 people a year killed in auto accidents and no one wants to stop the automotive industry. There are billions of gallons of fuel and natural gas being transported in pipelines. It is far safer than trucks and railroads. I fail to realise how a pipeline transporting oil can cause fuel prices to go up. Old pipelines are being replaced yearly. My company is replacing miles of old cast iron mains every year. Also, I have NEVER in 36 years seed spiral welded pipe. It has been outlawed for years. New mains are always pressure tested to 1-1/2 times their maximum operating pressure before gas is introduced. See DOT, Office of Pipeline safety rules part 192 if you don't believe me. Whoever wrote this report is a liberal professor probably a greenie and is from a liberal Ivy league school. We need jobs, we need oil, we need gas, we need energy, and not from the Arabs!

scootrd · « **Reply #62 on:** January 26, 2012, 08:48:03 AM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on January 25, 2012, 07:49:12 PM

But what thye are doing is legal. They take advantage of the tax laws and do the social engineering and as you mentioned cronyism that congress wrote into the tax law. Again reasons to go to a Progressive flat tax rate and any time there is a deficit, rates are cut automaticly by double the over spending percentage. Also as we hit a deficit in the bugdet all congressional salaries and pensions are cut in half. Every Congressional staff member takes a 25% pay cut. Any non congressional department gets a pay cut of 3 times the deficit rate.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you . I honestly don't know the answer. But what I do know is we have two totally separate and unequal tax systems in America. one the uber wealthy and corps , and the other for workin stiffs like us.

True tax reform is the answer , how they achieve this reform that promotes fairness and balance for all is what we have put them in office to do. If Romney gets in , Tax reform will never happen , he like his other 1% ers like the status quo.

How about we start with just getting rid of all loopholes. Reagan cleansed our Tax code pretty well with reform when he was in office , it was only after his departure, lobbyist staring sneaking the loopholes back in through bought off congressional leaders.

Quote from: Dixie Dude on January 26, 2012, 08:42:24 AM

I don't know what liberal wrote the Cornell report, but it is a croc.

Just because you disagree with the findings of both Cornell, and the TransCanada's own admissions when pressed does not make it liberal. As stated Federal officials are taking the time they need to gather information and appropriately examine trade-offs regarding gas costs, water safety concerns, and public health risks from spills.

I personally think this is a prudent approach. (I understand other opinions may differ). I would rather we take the time up front and do whats best for us all once all facts have been reviewed than rush into something with knowing only half the facts regarding positive or negative impacts.

Additionally, are you aware More than half of the oil that fuels the U.S.—49%—comes from the Western Hemisphere, and only 18% comes from the Persian Gulf—Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates?

U.S. dependence on imported oil has dramatically declined since peaking in 2005.

Here's the full breakdown -

http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #63 on:** January 26, 2012, 10:27:29 AM »

Putting it in large bold print does not make it true.

Communism and Socialism work and create happy equal societies.
See still not true.
Please, no one crop the quote and make it look like I need medication, a frontal lobotomy, or that I have lost 50% or more of my IQ points and become a pinko commie bedwetter.

I also question the validity of the study. These are the same people that said tax cutas are a zero sum gain and that no new jobs would be created by it.
Ronald Reagan proved that wrong.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #64 on:** January 26, 2012, 01:10:29 PM »

I am saying their reports are not schollarly but start with a premiss and use or alter data to support that premis.
Much like ABC News started with the premis that GWB was a draft dodger and then either falsified paper work or knew the paper work was falsified to support their claims.
Hey I can donate a few million to NYU next week and get a report from their economics departemnt saying the pipeline will create over a Billion in tax revinue, create 300,000 thousand jobs. My donation for the report does not make the data for the report or the number of jobs real.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #65 on:** January 26, 2012, 01:17:32 PM »

Right now, this oil is being transported by train. Is train safer than a pipeline? No, the cars can leak and the train can derail. That is one reason they went with pipelines back in the 1920's and 1930's. Most of the older ones have been replaced. Again, I have one installed about 5 miles in 1955, and has NEVER had a leak. That is a big deal to me. That is 57 years ago. Our studies indicate it will last another 50 years. When a pipeline is installed, the worse case senario's are assumed. This helps with design.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #66 on:** January 26, 2012, 01:23:28 PM »

It would be like saying that the Hoover Dam did not create any jobs.
We know that the building of the dam employed many workers, the need for engineers, draftsmen, and other field experts, raised the demand for those people even in the depression, and their wages went up. We know that the raw materials needed for the building of the dam employed people to mine, to truck and to refine those raw materials into usable supplies like cement, steel, pipe, copper wire, valves, well everyting to build a hydro electric dam. People are still needed to maintain the dam, as tour guides, to maintain the level of water behind the dam and make sure the drinking water in the lake behid the dam is safe to drink. Those are dircect jobs associated with the dam. Now lets look at the indirect jobs that the dam makes possible - All of Las Vegas! Every single job there. From the Heads of the Casinos to the grocery store clerk. The water and the power make that city possible. And that dam only spans 1244 Feet what would a pipe line that spans 1,000 miles create?

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #67 on:** January 26, 2012, 01:27:45 PM »

Quote from: Dixie Dude on January 26, 2012, 01:17:32 PM

Right now, this oil is being transported by train. Is train safer than a pipeline? No, the cars can leak and the train can derail. That is one reason they went with pipelines back in the 1920's and 1930's. Most of the older ones have been replaced. Again, I have one installed about 5 miles in 1955, and has NEVER had a leak. That is a big deal to me. That is 57 years ago. Our studies indicate it will last another 50 years. When a pipeline is installed, the worse case senario's are assumed. This helps with design.

Warren Buffet Owns the train line shippingthe OIL and he is a huge contributor to OBOMA can you say pupet master and pupet? Barry I just bought shares in BofA bail them out so I can make 50% profit on the buy! Barry I own a train company that ships oil veto the pipe line so I can get more business shippingthe oil.

ratherbefishin · « **Reply #68 on:** January 26, 2012, 04:34:53 PM »

Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty

OldSchoolRanger · « **Reply #69 on:** January 26, 2012, 05:03:45 PM »

It may be too late to make Barry change his mind. The following was reported today.

From NY Post - Thurs. Jan. 26, 2012

Canada oil 'revenge"
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper is gaining support among Canadians for his plan to ship oil-sands crude to China after President Obama rejected TransCanada's $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline to the Gulf Coast.
Harper will meet President Hu Jintao in China next month, when he may tout a proposed Northern Gateway pipeline that would let crude flow to Asia from Alberta's oilsands via a Canadian port.
"The Keystone decision was a slap in the face to Canada and it's making Canadians rethink the relationship [with the United States]," said Jack Mintz, head of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. "Harper probably wants to put out a sign that we're open for business for Asia."
Harper is pushing energy exports to Asia to reduce the country's reliance on the United States and make Canada a global energy "superpower." Tapping markets in Asia may raise the price received by Canadian producers by $13.60 a barrel by 2030, according to a University of Calgary study. About 99 percent of Canada's crude exports go to the United States.
The share of Canadians who oppose the China plan has fallen to 43 percent in a poll conducted Jan. 13, down from 51 percent in a December survey.
Support for the project increased to 37 percent from 35 percent.
Bloomberg

nomosendero · « **Reply #70 on:** January 26, 2012, 05:15:42 PM »

Oh, well now, Cornell

SwampThing762 · « **Reply #71 on:** January 26, 2012, 07:16:05 PM »

Obummer's plan to ruin America advances even further to fruition. Gas prices rose this week, again. Hey, Obamanites, are you enjoying these most recent gasoline bargains thanks to the brilliance of your boy in the White House?

ST762

ironglow · « **Reply #72 on:** January 27, 2012, 01:09:58 AM »

I am a biy surprised that the cornell report would take a statement from Hillary's state department at face value...unless the writers are predisposed toward a certain skew.. For instance where the report says;

" The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department."
Clearly, somebody wasn't thinking very clearly...
I have worked pipeline, and we never went under anybody's house or garden gazebo, it was costly enough boring under highways. Surpries !! Somehow the crews managed to keep the trench & it's operations within the approved right-of-way parameters.
The statement above is disingenuous because it doesn't mention the associated jobs. My nephew is a foreman in an oil refinery on the Texas coast. He's working 60-80 hours per week..when that influx of Canadian crude hits, the refineries will need to be expanded and new hiring will abound..along with attendant businesses..clothing, restaurants supplies etc. Don't forget, those refineries will be producing product for the Us..along with refined product to be sold to the rest of the world.
I realize Obama has no grasp of the oil business or the everyday life of people who work for a living..but somebody should clue him in!

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #73 on:** January 27, 2012, 03:35:46 AM »

When we build a pipeline, we go the most rural route possible.

For several reasons:

1) only pastures, fields, or forests are distrubed, and only 50-60' wide. Once in place, it can revert back to pasture or farmland. Only forested areas would have to be kept as grass or meadow, for access in case of a leak and to perform leak surveys.
2) If a major pipeline is near a densly populated area, it has to be checked for leaks monthly, and checked internally by pig twice yearly. Rural only requires checking for leaks twice yearly and no pigging.

This report is slanted, I forgot Buffet owns the railroad up there. Also comes from a liberal Ivy League school.

We still need the pipeline to take the Bakan oil out of North Dakota, northern South Dakota, and eastern Montana.

Obama is only pandering to his contributors and the environmental wakos.

It is strange to me that MOST of the BILLIONAIRS support Obama, like Buffet and Gates, and are not Republican, yet the Dems claim the Republican party is the party of the rich.

magooch · « **Reply #74 on:** January 27, 2012, 04:00:30 AM »

Here's an idea--lets study the pipeline for about ten more years and get even more think tanks and universities involved. Imagine all the researchers and eggheads that could be hired. And then lets publish all the conflicting results and assumptions--even more jobs. See, economics aren't so tough.

rickt300 · « **Reply #75 on:** January 27, 2012, 05:12:15 AM »

Here is another take,I work for a company that makes pipeline products and since TIO (that idiot Obama) decided to nix the pipeline our company has decided not to invest heavily in more equipment to make valves, fittings and pipe and the machine I run has had no material to make parts from for 4 days now. Now you leftist airheads can say good go draw unemployement, this will be good for the environment. I say prove it and that the people that work are more important than your theoretical BS. Seems making money and paying taxes is not that important to leftist airheads, odd isn't it? One has to wonder why anyone would believe any of the leftist envirodrivel or that their line of thinking is anything but destructive.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #76 on:** January 27, 2012, 05:25:59 AM »

Like I said, I am an engineer, and have designed, and inspected pipelines. That article is mostly environmental BS. Go to any gas or oil company and they will show you the locations of all their mains, pipelines, etc. They are all over the place. You can see electrical transmission mains cross country in clearings, pipelines are the same, but probably more of them since you have pipelines for oil, gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, natural gas, coal gas, propane, butane, even water and sewer pipelines. Granted, some are multi-purpose. For instance gasoline, kerosene, and diesel can run in the same pipeline, just at different times, and there are pigs seperating the liquids until they are drawn down. Crude and gathering lines are also seperate from the refined fuels. You would be surprised as to how many pipelines are under the Gulf of Mexico from Texas and Louisana to Florida. They lie on the bottom. One was just recently finished to carry natural gas from Louisana to Tampa. They were going to run in on land, but the EPA blocked it with so many regulations and endless paperwork, thousands of property owners, that it was going to cost more. The underwater pipe itself cost far more than the underground due to the extra coating required to keep the salt water from corroding the pipe than an underground. It also cost more to install due to the special barges required to transport the welding crew and pipe along the route.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #77 on:** January 27, 2012, 06:31:20 AM »

[. They expressed a counter view to the usual Big Oil positions and it is soemthing to be considered....This pipeline and the owners, Big Oil really do want us endlessly and hopelessly addicted to old school oil...this pipeline will further that goal. This country needs new and renewable energy technologies released now....not later, to achieve enrgy independence....this pipeline is about more dependence on Big Oil.

..TM7]Big Oil
Really? It is not big oil that has closed the Gulf to US companies drilling there (but allows China and Venezula to drill), it is not BIG OIL that has closed Alaska reserves in ANR to pumping, It is not Big Oil that will not allow old wells to be reopened now that technology allows for oil to be drawn out of those wells.
It is not BIG OIL that has not allowed a new refinery to be built since the 70's. Our population as almost doubled since then.
We have as much oil in the US as does Saudi Arabia. Some how the Saudi lobbiests are good about closing down our production so they can make absurd profits.
Refineries are opened in Mexico and allowed to polute when a refinery in the US would be 4X cleaner, provide Jobs, income for US people, and pay federal state and local taxes. State and local taxes are what fund our school systems.
We could become a wold oil exporter. Think of the Trillions of $ headed here.
The billions of tax dollars generated through sales.
How much cleaner the wold would be is we did the production instead of

ratherbefishin · « **Reply #78 on:** January 27, 2012, 06:49:45 AM »

have you ever read a ''study'' that did not conclude more ''studies ''were required?Think about it-we're not breaking new ground here-Piplines are NOT rocket science-they are NOT new theres thousands and thousands of miles of piplelines ALREADY crisscrossing the country-over all kinds of terrain-what they ARE is a simple economical efficient way to move oil and gas.And while the eco wackos will tell you we all need to ride bicycles-the fact remains our economy RELYS on transportation-cars trucks, trains and planes -and they ALL USE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

ironglow · « **Reply #79 on:** January 27, 2012, 07:42:57 AM »

From TM;
" Please explain to Nomosendero and mcwoodduck that Cornell is not just a group of disagreeing 'commies and socialist', but consist of one of the finer higher education universities in the country; and to assume that somebody would bribe Cornell to prevent or undo something is unfathomable. Fact is the Cornell Univ Global Labor Institute is all about development and sound business."
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I am fairly certain both Nomosendoro & mcwooduck are well aware that cornell U is a sistinguished university, being one of the handful of "ivy league" institutions. But of course not all profs at all Universities are really operating with a full deck.
East Anglia U. in the UK is rated quite high, but look what a few "eco-freak" profs tried to pull off there. Sorry, I don't automatically take pronouncements at face value, even if a person has so many degrees..the end of his last name looks like alphabet soup, too many have been caught with their hands in the fib-filled cookie jar !
...................................
Scoot asks..." How many jobs will the pipeline create ?"
..There's one simple answer to that..If we go ahead and force the Canadians to run the pipeline to the west coast and let China take all the crude to supply their manufacturing operations and sell refined products to the rest of the world...it sure won't create a single job here !
.........................................
Has anyone noticed; many of those who don't want to seek jobs for non-governmental employees, are people who are living off the government one way or another..they seem to want to "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs."

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #80 on:** January 27, 2012, 09:16:27 AM »

A lot of the exported oil is from Alaska to Japan, because it is easier to ship there than to Texas because the tankers can't get through the Panama Canal.

Most east and west coast colleges and universities are liberal and idealist in their thinking and attitude, thus the push for "green" energy. By the way, Spain just cut their government subsities for renewable energy because they can't afford it. My BIL and SIL are both college professors teaching at Auburn University and went to Brown University, and Ivy league school. Both voted for Obama. Their education is very liberal. They sometimes have no clue about how the real world operates.

We still import 60% of our oil for our consumption, thus we need our own. Even if we imported only the equivelant of what we export from Alaska, at least it is a wash.

Green technology is great IF it is profitable. For instance Exxon has put $500 million into an algae production facility to see if it has payback. Right now it costs about $2 a gallon to produce algae oil. It only costs about $1/gallon to drill. Algae will one day replace oil, but not quite yet. Oil will have to get to about $150-200 a barrel. It will evenutally. Corn ethynol caused the price of food to increase, because before ethynol 90% of corn was for animal feed, not human consumption. That is why meat and eggs have increased in price the last few years, because of ethynol production and it is highly subsidised by the feds. Solar is not yet cost effective. Wind can be, but the locations of the highest wind are far from the people, and the transmission mains haven't been built.

Our biggest problem isn't electrical production. We already have coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro. All not imported. The problem is with liquid fuels because of our 200,000,000 vehicles, planes, ships, and trains needed this liquid fuel. There isn't a cost effective electric vehicle solution, and they can't be recharged in 15 minutes. So, we are going to rely on imported oil, with our dollars going overseas, and not spent here.

scootrd · « **Reply #81 on:** January 27, 2012, 09:57:57 AM »

Quote from: Dixie Dude on January 27, 2012, 09:16:27 AM

A lot of the exported oil is from Alaska to Japan, because it is easier to ship there than to Texas because the tankers can't get through the Panama Canal.

Most east and west coast colleges and universities are liberal and idealist in their thinking and attitude, thus the push for "green" energy. By the way, Spain just cut their government subsities for renewable energy because they can't afford it. My BIL and SIL are both college professors teaching at Auburn University and went to Brown University, and Ivy league school. Both voted for Obama. Their education is very liberal. They sometimes have no clue about how the real world operates.

We still import 60% of our oil for our consumption, thus we need our own. Even if we imported only the equivelant of what we export from Alaska, at least it is a wash.

Green technology is great IF it is profitable. For instance Exxon has put $500 million into an algae production facility to see if it has payback. Right now it costs about $2 a gallon to produce algae oil. It only costs about $1/gallon to drill. Algae will one day replace oil, but not quite yet. Oil will have to get to about $150-200 a barrel. It will evenutally. Corn ethynol caused the price of food to increase, because before ethynol 90% of corn was for animal feed, not human consumption. That is why meat and eggs have increased in price the last few years, because of ethynol production and it is highly subsidised by the feds. Solar is not yet cost effective. Wind can be, but the locations of the highest wind are far from the people, and the transmission mains haven't been built.

Our biggest problem isn't electrical production. We already have coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro. All not imported. The problem is with liquid fuels because of our 200,000,000 vehicles, planes, ships, and trains needed this liquid fuel. There isn't a cost effective electric vehicle solution, and they can't be recharged in 15 minutes. So, we are going to rely on imported oil, with our dollars going overseas, and not spent here.

This is the exchange of Ideas I like to read about , all sides weighing pro's and con's and no politics getting in the way.
Thanks for posting . It was a good read of idea's

ratherbefishin · « **Reply #82 on:** January 27, 2012, 10:15:23 AM »

A lot of Canadians are asking the same question-WHY are we sending crude south or east when we should be refining it right on site-there is a HUGE supply there.Unfortionately the eco-wackos would fight tooth and nail to STOP a refinery being built-or at least ''study'' it for 10 years,and then conclude we need to ''study'' it for another 10....meanwhile-the country needs oil, we need the jobs and if by doing so, we reduce or eliminate our dependency on the Arabs-so much the better-win -win[except if you're an Arab]

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #83 on:** January 27, 2012, 01:09:14 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on January 27, 2012, 10:31:34 AM

Quote from: ratherbefishin on January 27, 2012, 10:15:23 AM
A lot of Canadians are asking the same question-WHY are we sending crude south or east when we should be refining it right on site-there is a HUGE supply there.Unfortionately the eco-wackos would fight tooth and nail to STOP a refinery being built-or at least ''study'' it for 10 years,and then conclude we need to ''study'' it for another 10....meanwhile-the country needs oil, we need the jobs and if by doing so, we reduce or eliminate our dependency on the Arabs-so much the better-win -win[except if you're an Arab]
.
Exactly! How is it cost effective/efficient to ship volumes of crude 2300 miles to old refineries, when you can build new efficient refineries specific to refining low grade bitumen and dilbit right close to location and ship finished producs?? I haven't got a reasonable answer to that, yet.I should think new refineries are the list of 'enviornmentalists' worries compared to the actual getting the tar sands bitumen...
Pipelines are industries unto themselves and are quite profitable enterprises. But if I don't need to pay for a pipeline or have one in my backyard, I wouldn't want it on my tab.

...TM7

Are you saying we can build new refineries here in the Northern US and just build the pipe like 300 to 500 miles?

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #84 on:** January 28, 2012, 11:47:37 AM »

TM7,
Good to see you agree we can build refineries in the US, the only disagreement I have with you is, The Oil companies woulod be the ones building the refineries, they would be spending their money to buy the land, develope the land and employ a contractor to build the facilities and then employ people. The way you make it sound, you want the government to build and staff the refinery.
I have said before and will untill the day I die, there is NOTHING that the government can do that the Private secoter can not do better and cheaper. There are some things we do not want the private sector to do.
I do not understand you hatred for Big Oil and not for BIG Government. Big Oil is a group of companies that are all trying to produce a product for the lowest price. On most gas corners you have three or four choices for brands. Much like you have the choice of Soda or OJ brands.
Also remember that State and Local governments make about twice the profits that the Oil company makes in the form of taxes directly and indirectly on a gallon of fuel. So if gas were $10 a gallon and it cost $4 to produce (expoloring for oil, drilling a well, removing that oil, shipping it to a refinery, paying for labor, paying the payrol taxes of those employees, and actually refining it) it and get it to the station. $5.50 would be profit, $1 for the maker (chevron for example) .35 for the gas station franchise owner and .15 for the transporter and the federal and state government would get $4 of it. You want ot talk abouyt a monopoly Big Government is it!

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #85 on:** January 28, 2012, 01:49:11 PM »

Mcwoodduck, you are right. Since I work in the natural gas industry. The gas is taxed at the wellhead when it goes to the pipeline operator, then it is taxed when they sell it to a distribution company, then it is taxed when you get your gas bill. Lots of taxes along the route.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #86 on:** January 28, 2012, 03:36:53 PM »

Quote from: Dixie Dude on January 28, 2012, 01:49:11 PM

Mcwoodduck, you are right. Since I work in the natural gas industry. The gas is taxed at the wellhead when it goes to the pipeline operator, then it is taxed when they sell it to a distribution company, then it is taxed when you get your gas bill. Lots of taxes along the route.

Not to mention the taxes involved in the profits at 35 to 45% and all of the payroll, personal income taxes, property taxes, and assorted taxes on running the business (license, power, vehicle registration, sales tax, the taxes on the phome bill......).

rickt300 · « **Reply #87 on:** January 28, 2012, 04:13:50 PM »

The leftist enviropap means nothing to me other than idiots will argue anything. My main concern is paying my bills and raising my kids, any other leftist aspect is sheer stupidity.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #88 on:** January 29, 2012, 07:35:35 AM »

The Tax incentives and free stuff you are talking about does not exist. The President was LYING when he said tax benefits for Big Oil in the state of the Union address the other night. More of his class warfare rants. There are tax credits for small oil companies for exploration of sources. These exploration of resources is expensive.
Now if the President was not LYING and some of the Billion + dollars that Big Oil send to Washington in the form of taxes each year are spent back in research, or in tax reductions who cares. Also any an all tax laws were created by Congess. If you have a problem with the tax law and companies taking ever advantage of them. As long as what they do is legal what problems do you have with it?
The free research you are talking about, I am guessing is the research done in Universities in geology departemnts and chemistry departments. In school many of my friends we Geology grad students all doing research at the school moast of it was in ways to find oil or naturals gas. Of the five of them three were on grants from BIG OIL companies, the other two were paying full tuition. There were funding the school with tution paying for the buildings, paying for the professors, and other University staff in hopes of getting jobs with those same oil companies. I am sure there was other BIG OIL $ involved in funding the school but I can not prove it. With out the $ involved in the oil companies that departemtn would not be needed. With out the allure of $ in the private sector the bulk of students would not want higher education and these prestigous universities would be down to 10 professors each and 300 students a year. Some how the University still does the research, the students still show up and hand over wads of cash to fund the University and pay the over inflated Professor and administrator salaries and benefits.

You say you have no problems with the free market but in the next sentenance you bad mouth them.
I am not sure what you do for a living but if we moved everthing from the private sector to the Public and We the People own everything. Nothing new would be produced, the air would get dirtier, the water would be fouled, and the food would no longer be fresh or pleantiful. Look at any communist country and you will see shortages and waste. Look at Cuba before the revolution and after. They can barly feed themselves now. The master minds that run the economy tend to kill it. You will see the same here. I do not understand the hatred comming from the left toward the private sector that has funded Education at all levels, The expanse of governemnet, Public buildings and museums, the ability to have public parks and road ways. Since the 60's the left has had a war on poverty by giving away $ and creating a dependant society that has grown. Both as a government that needs to have poor people to justify the departments and as comunity organizers that need ot show that the people are being kept by the MAN and have required more and more of the tax $ to be given away. These companies and the booming economy that has funded the transfer of wealth to government is now under attack to create more people that require help.

scootrd · « **Reply #89 on:** January 29, 2012, 07:41:45 AM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on January 29, 2012, 07:35:35 AM

The Tax incentives and free stuff you are talking about does not exist. The President was LYING when he said tax benefits for Big Oil in the state of the Union address the other night. More of his class warfare rants. There are tax credits for small oil companies for exploration of sources. These exploration of resources is expensive.

Big oil always claims that its subsidies are for job creation and drilling costs, but there are actually nine different subsidies in the tax codes that the oil companies enjoy. Getting rid of those subsidies would save the US $45 billion over ten years.

BP also gained huge tax benefits in leasing the Deepwater Horizon rig, writing off 70% of the platform's rent -- a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began, according to a letter sent to the Senate Finance Committee.

Oil production is one of the most heavily subsidized businesses in America, with tax breaks available at almost every stage of the exploration and extraction process, according to an Analysis by NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?hp