apparently revolves around eliminating tax subsidies to oil companies ... why doesn't he go a step further and eliminate ALL tax subsidies to ALL private companies?

That is something I could actually support.

Originally Posted by logan5

apparently revolves around eliminating tax subsidies to oil companies ... why doesn't he go a step further and eliminate ALL tax subsidies to ALL private companies?

That is something I could actually support.

I agree with you on that one. I would take it a step further though and get rid of all tax subsidies to people as well. Why should someone pay less in taxes because they have a kid or they buy a Volt car?

I am in complete agreement with ending all subsidies. But i also am not ignorant enough to believe ending oil subsidies will not RAISE the price of oil products including gasoline.

Originally Posted by AintQytRite

I am in complete agreement with ending all subsidies. But i also am not ignorant enough to believe ending oil subsidies will not RAISE the price of oil products including gasoline.

I don't think getting rid subsidies will lower the price of gas ... but regardless ... it is the right thing to do. And it should be done for ALL private companies. This includes "loans" and "bailouts".

What are these "oil company subsidies" of which I hear so many speak? I know there are tax incentives for manufacturers, that apply to and are used by oil companies, but from what I've been able to find out, the USG does not pay any tax money to the oil companies...which is what a subsidy is.

Obama just successfully lobbied against the complete building of Keystone, but saw today for appearances the President plans to visit the southern portion that is being assembled. Liked what Senator Mitch McConnell office has to say about that.

"Well What Do You Know: Obama to Visit Keystone Pipeline Project"

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/19/obama-keystone/

And there's the Obammy Algae/Gasoline converter if you live near a scum filled pond. I think Solyndra has been contracted to produce them

Originally Posted by FL Knifemaker

a scum filled pond.

That sounds like the present White house.

Originally Posted by mikefast

That sounds like the present White house.

+1... It's the loopholes in the tax code that we need to really look at... OR... maybe just ditch the whole tax code and go to a flat tax or that fair tax thingy... It's totally crazy...

I agree, flat tax. 10% 15 %, what ever we all agree on. Right across the board. No rebates , no breaks, no returns. and if you attempt to hide your millions over seas, you have to pay twice as much. if you move your company oveseas, pay twice as much to sell it back in America.

Be very cautious because we're dealing with a duplicitous ideology here..by which I mean a hardcore leftist. They continually and intentionally coopt terms which mean one thing in the normal, natural law based moral universe of regular people, and do so to obtain the imprimatur of the sense these words invoke. The problem is that the what the left means by them does not coincide with the actual meaning of the words. We have 'social' justice (redistribution and identity group politics), 'fairness', 'responsibility' (assignment of 'responsibility' by fiat in some cases, and it's complete absence in others), 'equality' (of outcome) and so on.

So when I hear him speak of ending subsidies, I look for what he means by it, not it's normal meaning. I'm all for ending *actual* subsidy to any and all industries, 100% gone, period. However, as with what 'we're not broke' really means to the left, I'm betting that what he considers a 'subsidy' is not taxing or taking private resources from them at his preferred level. Or something else having nothing to do with actual subsidy.

So, call me skeptical. If he's actually talking about real subsidy...I'm all for it. It would represent a shocking turnaround for him to mean the same things honest people mean when using words, and I'd welcome it.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Be very cautious because we're dealing with a duplicitous ideology here..by which I mean a hardcore leftist. They continually and intentionally coopt terms which mean one thing in the normal, natural law based moral universe of regular people, and do so to obtain the imprimatur of the sense these words invoke. The problem is that the what the left means by them does not coincide with the actual meaning of the words. We have 'social' justice (redistribution and identity group politics), 'fairness', 'responsibility' (assignment of 'responsibility' by fiat in some cases, and it's complete absence in others), 'equality' (of outcome) and so on.

So when I hear him speak of ending subsidies, I look for what he means by it, not it's normal meaning. I'm all for ending *actual* subsidy to any and all industries, 100% gone, period. However, as with what 'we're not broke' really means to the left, I'm betting that what he considers a 'subsidy' is not taxing or taking private resources from them at his preferred level. Or something else having nothing to do with actual subsidy.

So, call me skeptical. If he's actually talking about real subsidy...I'm all for it. It would represent a shocking turnaround for him to mean the same things honest people mean when using words, and I'd welcome it.

Maybe you are giving mr obama and crew to much credit here goat. I find that they don't even try to cover their lies with tricky misrepresentations and double meanings. They simply say one thing and do another. Only a few in the media make an effort to catch him at it and even then, most don't care.

Originally Posted by BE77 Pilot

Maybe you are giving mr obama and crew to much credit here goat. I find that they don't even try to cover their lies with tricky misrepresentations and double meanings. They simply say one thing and do another. .

I agree, he's acting just like a Republican.

http://jeff-sherwood.suite101.com/gr...e-jobs-a394788

The answer? Of course the Republican party realizes this. The arguments of spending and the deficit are simply red herrings to see them through the 2012 elections.

Originally Posted by 62pilot

I agree, he's acting just like a Republican.

I think like usual, you misunderstood the point.

Originally Posted by 62pilot

I agree, flat tax. 10% 15 %, what ever we all agree on. Right across the board. No rebates , no breaks, no returns. and if you attempt to hide your millions over seas, you have to pay twice as much. if you move your company oveseas, pay twice as much to sell it back in America.

I know it will make your day ... or shock you ...but I agree with you completely. That would spur the economy more than any other single method.