LIES, LIES, LIES. lmfao.
Yes Obama plans to nationalize oil and gas, I mean he is an African, Muslim, Marxist, UnAmerican spy. LMFAO. "fair and balanced"
Printable View
LIES, LIES, LIES. lmfao.
Yes Obama plans to nationalize oil and gas, I mean he is an African, Muslim, Marxist, UnAmerican spy. LMFAO. "fair and balanced"
What this ignores, of course, is that American oil and gas companies have had a century of built-in advantages. For example, they are allowed to deduct "intangible drilling costs" -- including labor and drilling fluids -- the moment a well is tapped (even if it proves to be dry). And then there's the "depletion allowance," which allows certain extractors to shelter around 15% of a well's production from the IRS. And deductions for royalties paid to foreign governments. And the oil and gas liability cap that remains at just $75 million, more than a year after the BP (BP) rig explosion. Then there's Section 199, which allows profitable oil and gas companies to deduct 6% of net income.
To be sure, there also are tax breaks for green-energy companies. But most of those handouts are temporary -- including low-interest loans from the 2009 stimulus -- with renewables receiving only around 5% of some $20 billion worth of federal energy tax breaks (excluding subsidy-rich ethanol, which is a separate but equal tax tragedy). Some of these subsidies are very important to individual companies, but the renewable-energy industry's best long-term play is to support the elimination of all federal energy handouts. "If the playing field is truly leveled by a good-faith proposal to eliminate all subsidies for fossil fuels and renewables, I am very confident that renewables will compete effectively," says Josh Green, a venture capitalist focused on the clean-tech market.
Solar-energy-generation costs, for example, fall around 8% each year as technologies improve and capacity expands. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently said that he could see solar and wind "being cost competitive without subsidy with new fossil fuel" by the end of this decade. Imagine how must faster the gap could close if the competition wasn't on government-prescribed steroids.
The oil industry counters by claiming that the elimination, or even reduction, of its federal largesse will cost both production and jobs. Hogwash. U.S. oil companies drill domestically for one reason: Their product can be found here. And that will continue as long as there is local supply and global demand. If U.S. crude oil production was tied directly to taxes, then it should have grown between 1999 and 2007, when federal subsidies doubled. Instead, it actually fell 14%.
What oil companies truly fear, I think, is unshackled innovation -- and even a modest loss of market share. Rather than trying to outsmart the upstarts, the oil companies spend their time trying to scare us into codifying their supremacy. ConocoPhillips (COP) CEO James Mulva recently said that a Senate proposal to end $4 billion of oil subsidies was "un-American." No, Mr. Mulva, it's pro-capitalism.
Posted in: cleantech, energy, oil
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/...ax-breaks-now/
You said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
You should be posting links and or credits to keep Charles out of trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Oops. Typing too fast and forgetting. Thanks
I thought this was pretty funny in a way. Its from North Dakota tourist board.
The Downsides Of The Oil Rush
However, before you pack up your bags, make sure you take a realistic look at the entire situation. Just like rushes before in history, there are downsides to this rush.
Housing
Because so many people have flocked to North Dakota, there is a housing shortage. Many people are sleeping in their cars or in RVs in parking lots and camp grounds. The oil companies set up “man camps” which are like dorm housing for the oil field workers, but once reasonable housing has skyrocketed to $1,500 a month for a one bedroom apartment. Of course, you would be lucky to find the apartment to rent.
Crime
Many of the sleepy North Dakota towns experiencing the growth due to the oil boom are unaccustomed to crime. For instance, in Willistown, reported crimes tripled. According to CNN Money, “Assault and battery incidents in Williston rose 171% to 38 charges last year. Two years ago, there may have been three-to-four violent crimes a week. Now, it’s an average of two or three a night.” Crimes related to drug and alcohol abuse such as pharmacy thefts and domestic violence are also on the rise.
Traffic
Another drawback is the traffic. The small towns in North Dakota have small roads and dirt roads. Now, they are filled with workers and semi-trucks. Infrastructure can’t keep up with the population growth. In addition, there are more intoxicated and impaired drivers. Local resident Michelle Falcon-Nelson states, “I drive 15 miles to work everyday with my two children and we have about at least two to three near car accidents a week. . .The traffic is horrible and our road infrastructure was not ready for the hundreds of oil field trucks that tear it up. This week alone, there were four semi truck accidents in four days.” (CNN Money)
That's economic opportunity. Building infrastructure - roads and sewage lines / treatment.... public union jobs.... Construction of houses that will need dishwashers, carpeting, refrigerators.................... That's demand. Real demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Just pointing out some simple truths that you cant be utopian about everything going on in North Dakota. No one opposes economicopportunity, just one sided political talking points. :)
Now I know with certainty that you don't read anything anyone else posts as I've made this exact same point very recently. Enjoy your igornant bliss.
Yeap, for sure, an example of economic expansion and demand creation by private industry is indeed a "one sided political talking point."Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
You do realize what a stupid comment that was. Glad I caught it and memorialized it.
I know you read better than that. THe simple one sided talking point is trying to turn case of North Dakota into an all encompassing statement about our energy future.
Not at all. I'm trying to show you an example of how free enterprise creates high paying middle class jobs, TAXES, demand for infrastructure (public sector union jobs, construction jobs..) WITHOUT the heavy hand of Government. This is the way it is SUPPOSSED to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
WE ALL understand how free enterprise works. Thank you.
Govt involvement doesnt have to be "HEAVY".
There is nuance and a matter of degree. Something
that you seem to not understand as you have published 100%
negative articles on the future technoloigies of the world involving
alternative energy. Keep sticking your head in the sand.
Dont many startup industries get govt help in the early stages? I thought I read that the computer industry was one of these.
Even Gov. Romney has been talking about private/govt partnerships. Earth to SiriuslyWrong.
He aint no Marxist.
Any govenrment aficionado (i.e. statist wannabe) would most certainly tell you that government is involved in the start up of all things. Biden was spouting that during his first year in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
I do laugh at the irony that the villified oil and gas industry is the source of these high paying jobs, TAX REVENUE and demand creation of public services.
Walter Isaacson on Steve jobs:
“He was really into supporting Obama in 2012…He wanted to make ads for Obama.”
Those TV spots would have been quite something, said Isaacson, considering the strength of Apple’s advertising reputation. “He felt that you needed to do that kind of ‘It’s Morning in America’ thing that Hal Riney did for Reagan,” said Isaacson.
It would have been a rare foray into politics for Jobs, whom Isaacson said “he just didn’t focus on politics.” (In case you were wondering, Isaacson said the topic of the 2012 Republican field never came up).
“He was fine with government policies, in general,” said Isaacson.
SiriuslyWrong: "Damn Communist". lol
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66803.html
We’ve heard the same tired ideas during the primaries, and we will hear them again in the Republican response to the State of the Union Address on Tuesday night: candidates offer plenty of attacks on Obama, but no new vision for America’s energy future.
Gingrich may be the man who wrote the book, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Solving Our Energy Crisis, but Romney is just as eager to rely on the same fossil fuels we’ve been using for the past 100 years. Romney’s energy blueprint, included in his “Believe in America” economic plan, calls for flinging open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy companies, sinking wells into the deepwater, and expanding fracking in the Marcellus Shale, despite a long list of environmental and public health concerns (not to mention small earthquakes).
Neither Romney nor Gingrich has a fresh plan for an energy future built on innovation and cutting-edge technology. Neither one talks about how better-performing cars are putting 150,000 Americans to work right now and helping slash our oil addiction at the same time. Neither one trumpets the fact that American engineers are already making breakthroughs in the next generation of solar technology. And neither one of them urges America to lead what has been estimated as the $243 billion global clean energy market.
Instead, both Romney and Gingrich seem to view renewable technologies as a wasteful distraction. This despite the fact that the Department of Defense—the nation’s largest consumer of energy—has pledged to get 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025 because of national security concerns.
The candidates like to demagogue about energy independence, but they have no plan to achieve it besides doing more of the same—an approach that hasn’t worked so far. We saw it in Gingrich’s acceptance speech in South Carolina. “I want America to become so energy independent that no American president ever again bows to a Saudi king.” That is a fine aspiration, but instead of encouraging Detroit to build more fuel-efficient engines or farmers to grow sustainable biofuels, he called for expanding offshore drilling and approving the Keystone XL pipeline.
When your home has 1.6 percent of the globe’s proven oil reserves and you consume 26 percent of the world’s supply, there is a limit to how much you can influence supply. That's not politics; it's geology.
And building a pipeline from a friendly ally won’t help much when the pipeline operators routinely say in the Canadian press that a primary goal of Keystone XL is to access Asian markets. The same operators have refused in Congressional testimony to commit to selling the majority of their oil to the United States. Instead, they are rerouting it out of the Midwest and into the “Foreign Trade Zone” in Port Arthur, Texas, where companies get incentives to export from of the United States.
Approving a pipeline to help dirty tar sands oil get to Asia is not a long-term plan for America’s energy system. Opening more ocean waters to drilling won’t position us to lead the next generation of energy breakthroughs. But that doesn’t stop Gingrich and Romney from singing the same old song again and again.
President Obama recognizes that America’s energy leadership will be built on clean technologies. Last week he kicked off his presidential campaign advertising with an ad devoted to the economic power of clean energy. I expect he will highlight it again in the State of the Union.
Here is how I expect the GOP candidates to respond: They will criticize Obama’s clean energy programs and sprinkle in fossil fuel buzzwords like Keystone and drilling. But their complaints can’t cover the fact that they have no fresh ideas, no innovation, and no groundbreaking vision for America’s energy future.
From MYDD.com
No fresh idea's?
How about letting markets work? That should be really fresh to you - the liberal market interventionist -- no, no, it's not socialism, we just want governement to manage markets to make things "fair" - you know, reward everyone when one takes the most risk. Share the wealth.....
JOBS are in ND folks. You can flip eggs for $15 an hour. They need houses, roads, sewage treatment plants... Eventually, they will need schools... All of these middle class public union jobs courtesy of the private sector - no need for goverment to create demand here - markets are at work.
How can we take ANYTHING you say seriously when you call President Obama a Marxist (and cantback it up), yet call yourself a centrist?
How can we take ANYTHING you say seriously when you stated that Peter Schiff's prediction that the Dowwill be 1,400 or gold will rise to $12,000 in the next 2 years was "BOLD"?
How can we take ANYTHING you say seriously when your favored "economist" Mr. Schiff has gotten so many of his predictions wildly wrong and yet has NEVER admitted to being wrong once.
The answer is that we CANT take you seriously.
You can try to exaggerate the liberal point of view with regard to govt. (much like Peter Schiff does) but it just makes you look SeriouslyAmateurish.
Havasucker, I said the typology tests graded me as a centrist. I am conservative minded when it comes to the economy and government. DUH.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
You are the one who cannot be taken seriously. Here we have a clear case of free markets at work, and you go on to say this thread is about energy policy. You are stupid. You are highly partisan. You refuse to recognize obvious things. For example, what is going on in ND is GOOD for society.
Where is your comment that this is a good thing? Nope. Can't do it. It's not on the piece of paper you have to read to figure out what your "position" is.
I don't need to exaggerate. You make the point for me.