Tax Breaks For Oil Companies? Barack Obama Continues To Be A Liar And A Demagogue On Energy

Let’s provide the facts first before we hear what the Liar-in-Chief has to say:

Are oil companies benefitting from tax breaks???

The record says otherwise:

FACTCHECK.ORG
Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks
Posted on February 28, 2008

Q: What kind of tax breaks does the U.S. give to oil companies and to corporations that send jobs overseas?

A: Companies with overseas subsidiaries can keep their income untaxed by the IRS if they don’t transfer that revenue back to the U.S. Oil and gas companies received tax breaks and subsidies from a 2005 energy bill, but the bill led to a net tax increase for them.

FULL QUESTION:

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

FULL ANSWER:

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.

Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil Company Tax Breaks?

Both leading Democratic candidates have referred to tax breaks to oil companies:

Clinton, July 23, 2007: First of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney.

Obama, June 22, 2007: In the face of furious lobbying, Congress brushed aside incentives for the production of more renewable fuels in favor of more tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.

Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.

-Emi Kolawole

Sources

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A Change We Can Believe In. 3 Nov. 2007. Obama for America. 26 Feb. 2008.

ECONOMY: Policy Address on America’s Economic Challenges. 19 Nov. 2007. Hillary Clinton for President. 26 Feb. 2008.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Taking Our Government Back
. 22 Jun. 2007. Obama for America. 26 Feb. 2008.

Democratic Presidential Debate. 23 Jul. 2007. CNN Transcripts.

Congressional Research Service. “Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies: Current Status and Analysis.” Washington: GPO, 2007.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. “Offshoring of Services: An Overview of the Issues,” Nov. 2005.

Which is to say that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were dishonest pandering liars in 2008 and both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to remain pandering liars to this day.

Note that to whatever extent oil companies get “tax breaks,” they got them in conjunction with a tax policy that takes more away than it gives them.  Some “break.”  And I would personally enjoy it very much if every Democrat got the same kind of “break” the oil companies got where we give them a free monocle just before we gouge one of their eyes out.  Oh, and then afterward I could demand that we take the monocle back.

Here’s an ad from Barack Obama in which Obama personally demonizes George Bush for $3.50 gasoline (note: it’s going on $4 a gallon under Obama now):

Now let’s hear what our lying demagogue slandering weasel in chief has to say now:

Obama : End tax breaks for oil companies
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Saturday, March 17,

President Obama said Saturday he can’t do much to lower gas prices, and renewed his call for Congress to end tax breaks for oil companies.

“The truth is, the price of gas depends on a lot of factors that are often beyond our control,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address. “Unrest in the Middle East can tighten global oil supply. Growing nations like China or India adding cars to the road increases demand.”

The president didn’t mention one of the few direct actions he could take to try to lower gas prices in the short term — releasing oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. Obama called for that solution as a candidate in 2008 when gasoline prices neared $4 per gallon, and he reportedly discussed the option earlier this week with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Instead, Mr. Obama said his administration is cracking down on oil profits — on traders who “distort the price of oil, and make big profits for themselves at your expense.” And he called on Congress again to eliminate $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil companies.

“Your member of Congress should be fighting for you,” Mr. Obama said. “Not for big financial firms. Not for big oil companies.”

A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service last year found that eliminating the subsidies would likely result in higher gas prices in the short term.

The address was the president’s second speech on gas prices and energy in three days. Public opinion polls are showing that the president’s job-approval rating, on the rise earlier in this election year, has dipped again as gas prices have risen. Retail prices on Friday rose a penny to a national average of $3.83 per gallon.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has pledged to enact policies that he said should lower gasoline prices to $2.50, a notion that Mr. Obama scoffs at.

“It’s easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices,” the president said in his address. “There just isn’t one. Anyone who tells you otherwise — any career politician who promises some three-point plan for two-dollar gas — they’re not looking for a solution. They’re just looking for your vote.”

In 2008, Mr. Obama stood in front of a gas station near Indianapolis and pledged to “take steps to reduce the price of oil.” He focused on long-term actions such as increasing fuel efficiency standards and promoting clean energy, which he has done as president.

“I will work to solve this energy crisis once and for all,” he said at the time.

And let me repeat: Barack Obama is a lying weasel.

Do you notice that the same dishonest liar who said, “I will work to solve this energy crisis once and for all” – and the same dishonest lying demagogue who attacked George Bush for gas prices when they were less than what they are now under Obama’s regime – is now saying, “It’s easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices.”  He should know – given all the damn quick fixes this lying hypocrite promised when he was lying and demagoguing his way into the White House.

Here’s more of Obama being Obama (read: here’s more of a dishonest lying demagogue being a dishonest lying demagogue).

For those of you who are more intelligent than a rodent (i.e. for those of you who don’t vote Democrat), let me ask you a question: if Obama increases taxes on oil companies, just why in the hell do you not think that the oil companies won’t pass those taxes right on to your dumb ass in the form of higher gasoline prices???  Which is another way of pointing out that not only does Obama want you to pay more for your gasoline, but he thinks you’re a complete idiot, too.

It’s past time for you to swing by the neck from your own damn noose, Obama you little weasel.

About these ads

Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to “Tax Breaks For Oil Companies? Barack Obama Continues To Be A Liar And A Demagogue On Energy”

  1. Michael Haltman (@Halthouse1) Says:

    President Obama manipulating the truth about oil!

    President Obama likes to say that the US only has less than 2% of the worlds proven reserves of oil.

    While technically true, the operative word in that sentence is “proven”. The US also has over a 200 year supply of oil in the ground not yet technically “proven” but there nonetheless.

    By using semantics the President seeks to dull the truth by manipulating statistics in order to serve his only agenda which is green! All to the detriment of the American people.

    Read the article at The Political Commentator here: http://bit.ly/xskGl8

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Michael Haltman,

    It’s true. “Proven reserves” is a technical term that measures oil by ONLY looking at oil wells that are under active production.

    You could have the world’s largest oil field in the planet right under your house, but if it isn’t actively being drilled, it does not count as a “proven reserve.”

    The U.S. actually has vast oil fields, but Democrats won’t allow us to take advantage of them; hence there is no drilling. And since there is no drilling, they are not counted as “proven reserves.” And since they are not counted as “proven reserves,” Democrats say we’ve only got 2% of the world’s “proven reserves” so why in the hell should we bother drilling???

    This form of sheer raving insanity is also called “Democrat logic.”

  3. Tom Says:

    He must solve the problem of how to transition from one technology to the next but I don’t think the short term solutions he is coming up with will be successful. Moreover, there are natural resources we are gradually running out of and little attention has been paid to it thus far. I was surprised when I read about certain kinds of natural resources which are not so well known but whose depletion would pose a serious problem for some industry sectors especially for the world of information technology. I am really concerned about whether the scientists will be able to find an effective solution to this problem other than the devastation of one of Earth’s most valuable natural resources – the ocean as suggested in the article.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Tom,

    I don’t know about you, but I refuse to call 2.3 TRILLION barells of oil in the United States a “scarce resource.”

    What the left does is play games with words. They say we’ve got only 2% of the world’s proven oil reserves.

    But the term “proven oil reserve” refers to oil wells that are actively under production. And they have stood in the way of any and all oil production in the U.S. for the last thirty damn years.

    Therefore we cannot drill – even though it is simply a fact that we have massive untapped oil reserves that we could harness if Democrats would only get the hell out of the way.

    The bottom line is that Democrats cite the fact that they have successfully kept us from drilling oil to justify that we shouldn’t drill our own oil.

    As to the part about “transitioning” technology, let me suggest what would help: it would help if the government quit idiotically picking winners and losers and giving us one Solyndra boondoggle after another.

    Right now, we don’t have a “winning” source of alternative energy. That’s mostly because 1) oil, coal and natural gas are so much cheaper per unit of energy and so much more powerful per unit of energy than “green energy” that it is positively unreal and 2) because with its abundance there is simply no NEED to have an alternative yet. Instead, what we do is massively subsidize inferior energy sources and create liberal crony capitalist/fascist boondoggles.

    If government simply got the hell out of the way, the private market would find the next reliable and inexpensive energy source and begin to invest in it and develop it.

    There might come some point in the future that government will need to help provide infrastructure – much the way the government (particularly Eisenhower) created the massive freeway system to foster automobiles/trucks. But what the government did NOT do was spend trillions of dollars trying to develop cars did they?

    When it comes to protecting our precious oceans, I like the idea just fine. But you liberals continually overstate the harm that providing the energy we NEED TO SURVIVE creates.

    For example, let’s take the “doomsday” of the huge BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A year after the disaster, even the uberliberal Time Magazine said:

    Yet nearly a year after the spill began, it seems clear that the worst-case scenario never came true. It’s not that the oil spill had no lasting effects — far from it — but the ecological doomsday many predicted clearly hasn’t taken place.

    Nearly two years later, the Gulf has largely returned to normal.

    Mind you, I don’t want another BP spill, but I also don’t want to have to walk thirty miles a day either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 537 other followers

%d bloggers like this: