Obama, Republicans tangle over oil subsidies - USATODAY.com

Repubs: Cut the Deficit!
Obama: Hey! There's $4 billion over here.
Repubs: Oh no. Not that!

Perhaps if we RAISED the funding for Planned Parenthood to $4 billion, THEN this all would make more sense?

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Or NPR, or the NEA (both of them) or the NIH, or the FDA, or Medicare,,,,,,,

yes --- eliminate actual paid out subsidies
a tax break or incentive is not a subsidy --- if that's what you're going to call a subsidy then we all are subsidized by the government for everything from deducting our children to deductable expenses such as medical expenses or mortgage interest; etc.
I still contend that all deductions should be eliminated & the rate dropped to the lowest possible to still do government's essential work.
it's pretty simple: increase the cost of doing business & the cost of the product or service will go up accordingly.

__________________
"Free people are not equal & equal people are not free." --- Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Government blows through $4B in new debt every few hours.

They'll need another blood meal after that.

__________________
US Debate Board

Sarah makes an interesting point on subsidies. She says, yeah you wanna shut down Big Oil's tax loopholes, but Obama shouldn't assume subsidies are all going to Big Oil. She says if it was up to her she'd have a look at subsidies, but she appears to thinks its mostly smaller research and development companies getting those.

I have heard that one before about those subsidies going to R&D.


Here's some interesting stats on just Exxon - from Exxon.

Gas prices and industry earnings: A few things to think about the next time you fill up | ExxonMobil's Perspectives Blog

From the interview, Palin starts out blaming Obama for the sharp rise in gas taxes.
Any question as to whether the queen of clueless blamed Bush when gas prices rose sharply on his watch?

And then she tosses out that tired old canard that supposedly "increasing supply" will decrease our gas prices...
The reason they are high IS NOT because of limited supply.

This lady is nothing but a walking talking point...

And THEN, she talks about what she "did for Alaska" ( ) and what's her focus?
CRACKING DOWN ON "BIG OIL"...

Just a second ago she was blaming our limited supply and Obama for not giving more supply...

And then she says *it's only about $4 billion dollars*.
But when Republicans tried to kill off Planned Parenthood in the name of debt reduction, did we hear ANY of this?

And I love how she describes what she claims "is their (oil company lobbyists) job, if you will"

When it comes to the AMERICAN PEOPLE getting money, Republicans are astounded and aghast at welfare.
But when it comes to CORPORATE welfare, that's just somebody's job...


And quite frankly, the queen of clueless loses any relevance in this discussion when she is asked *Would you end the subsidies on big oil*
Her response: "I would have to look at exactly what it is that Obama is talking about."
She has been asked to comment on Obama's actions.
She actively condemns what he is doing, claiming he is ignorant on the issue...
And THEN she admits she doesn't know what Obama is talking about.

Might as well have asked the finishing blow at this stage and asked "How can you criticize Obama's actions and plans when you are clearly ignorant of what he is doing?"

But hey. That's what made her popular amongst a lot of Repubs in the first place...

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

I could argue all that, but this is the one that interests me.

It interests me, because let me be the first one to admit I don't fully understand exactly how prices are set.

I know the talking point, but I don't fully understand the technical details that drive it. I suggest people who use that point are as baffled as I am.

The way the talking point goes is increasing supply won't affect prices because the market sets the prices. OK, here's what I don't understand. The market sets the prices. As I understand it the market bets on how much oil is going to be available in the near future. So why then wouldn't an increase in supply decrease prices?

The point is that OUR CURRENT PRICE HIKES have nothing to do with "decrease in supply".

I mean, we can argue that the government giving money directly to the people like in previous stimulus attempts will stimulate the economy, right?
But if the economy is in trouble, would we argue that we should just keep doing that until the economy fixes itself?

The ROOT of the problem needs to be fixed.
Not just the symptom in a way which would inevitably perpetuate the problem.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein