obAMATEUR Was For Oil “Subsidies” Before He Was Against It

Carney tries to defend the indefensible and then dodges the question: http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/tag/obama-voted-for-oil-subsidies/

Never mind that obAMATEUR LIES about “subsidies” – “But on top of these record profits, oil companies are also getting billions a year — billions a year in taxpayer subsidies “.  There are no tax payer “subsidies” to the oil companies.  These are legitimate TAX DEDUCTIONS that any manufacturer can take from the taxes they pay.

Never mind that oil companies “profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station.” is another half truth.  Oil companies profits are a result of other non-fuel related products as well.  Never mind that obAMATEUR does not differentiate between GROSS PROFITS, NET PROFITS or PROFIT MARGINS.  Never mind that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT makes more in taxes on a gallon of gas than the oil company does in profit.  Never mind that oil companies pays billions in taxes to the federal government.

Never mind that ACTUAL DIRECT SUBSIDIES to “green energy” companies have been a waste of money and he wants to “double down” on these same failed activities – “we should be using that money to double-down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising — investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels;”  Yeah, like Solyndra and other failed green companies that received direct tax payer subsidies and failed while the executives received bonuses.

Never mind, that these green energy “developments” will take the same amount of or more time to develop than to drill a new field.  Once developed, these new energy sources will have to have an infrastructure to put in place to distribute it across the country.  More than likely, these new sources may not be a direct fuel replacement for existing cars, trucks, aircraft, trains etc. etc. These green energies are not a direct replacement and drilling must continue until these sources become more economical or viable.

But why quibble about details? For obAMATEUR, the lies makes good politics during an election year for his mindless dumbed down drones.

31 thoughts on “obAMATEUR Was For Oil “Subsidies” Before He Was Against It

  1. Amazona March 31, 2012 / 10:51 am

    But….but…..but…..SUBSIDIES sounds like a handout, like, well WELFARE.

    While welfare is, well, uh, not a handout. What is it again? Oh, yeah—a RIGHT.

    Anyone hear the exchange between Charley Rose and the oil company CEO? Nothing could have been more telling. ‘Ol Left-Wing Charley, waving the red flag of anti-capitalism, kept repeating his mantra about “subsidies” and OCC (Oil Company CEO) kept correcting him and actually inserting FACTS. But Charley, professional that he is, never let these facts slow him down.

    I thought the best OCC response to Charley’s insistent whining that gee, golly, why don’t you guys just “GIVE BACK” those subsidies (after being told that they are not “subsidies” but deductions for business costs, a few times..) explained that if the government wants more tax revenue, the best ways to raise tax revenue without hurting the country would be to encourage oil and gas exploration and production, as this would create jobs (help economy, increase tax base) and the gov. would also get more royalties as more wells went online.

    But that doesn’t fit the narrative so necessary for the Left to continue to parrot, because it doesn’t involve the government in taking OPM and redistributing it. No, it is all about opening doors of opportunity, so INDIVIDUALS can become more prosperous, and therefore contribute more to tax revenue because they are paying taxes on higher incomes. And that is wrong, so wrong, on so many levels. Just ask any Lefty.

    So what it really comes down to is the feeling (deep, ingrained and powerful) that somewhere there just has to be a body of ruling elites which determines who DESERVES to make more money, and who gets big chunks of that money once the ruling elite has confiscated it for redistribution according to what is determined to the “right” way.

    No, it could not be the “right” way. It would have to be the “correct” way, since to these people “right” is always wrong.

  2. Retired Spook March 31, 2012 / 11:12 am

    I have no doubt that some day, a long time from now, petroleum will cease to be the fuel and lubricant of the engine of capitalism, but not tomorrow, not next week or next month or next year or 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. That doesn’t stop the pie-in-the-sky crowd from making it sound like an oil-free economy is just around the corner.


    Biofuels Summary Cover WASHINGTON, D.C.—Biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel can significantly reduce global dependence on oil, according to a new report by the Worldwatch Institute, released in collaboration with the German Agencies for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and Renewable Resources (FNR).

    Last year, world biofuel production surpassed 670,000 barrels per day, the equivalent of about 1 percent of the global transport fuel market. Although oil still accounts for more than 96 percent of transport fuel use, biofuel production has doubled since 2001 and is poised for even stronger growth as the industry responds to higher fuel prices and supportive government policies.

    So let’s see; the production of bio-fuel has “doubled in the last 10 years and is still only 1% of the total — IN SPITE OF SUPPORTIVE GOVERNMENT POLICIES. They may be supportive, but they certainly aren’t ROI oriented. At that rate biofuels won’t get to 50% of our transportation fuel needs for over half a century. To put that in perspective, one of Obama’s goals stated during the 2008 campaign was to have 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015. A million sounds like a big number until you realize it’s only .4% of the 250 million passenger cars and trucks on the road today. And, of course, achieving that .4% in 9 years would cost billions, perhaps 100’s of billions of dollars of OPM.

    • Amazona March 31, 2012 / 11:46 am

      As you know, I am a big supporter of some biofuels, and open to the possibility of more being developed. Ethanol was a scam and a boondoggle, but I really like biodiesel.

      One thing that really irks me, and has me shutting off Rush in mid-sentence even if it means having to listen to Tejano “music” instead, is his utterly stupid comments about “pond scum”.

      There is amazing technology on the horizon involving the use of some kinds of algae, which are not scraped off the tops of ponds but which are grown, at least so far, inside large transparent tubes, where they are fed carbon dioxide (anyone see a partial solution to the carbon dioxide hysteria on the Left?). When the plants are of a certain size, they are dried and crushed, producing a lot of oil, which can then be converted into biodiesel, with the byproduct, the crushed plants themselves, making excellent and wholesome Omega-3 rich animal fodder.

      If this technology can be developed and made profitable, it would have several beneficial results.

      Biodiesel is better for diesel engines. It offers more lubrication to the engines, making them last longer. The emissions are less toxic (though diesel emissions are already quite clean, in spite of the intuitive feeling that they are not.)

      Expanding the number of acres available for agriculture would benefit not only farmers but all industries dependent on agriculture. Many of the plants which produce oilseed will grow in arid conditions, or with much less water than, say, corn, which is the basis for ethanol. Bringing unproductive land into useful production would be an economic benefit

      So, if biodiesel technology advances, it could lead to cleaner air, less of that terrifying CO2 “pollution” that has the EPA flexing its newly designated muscle, it could provide feed for beef cattle that would result in more wholesome meat for the consumer, and it would provide an alternate form of fuel for many purposes. For example, coal-fired electrical producers rely on diesel generators for backup and other uses, and the total of all emissions from all sources at these plants limits their production. By using biodiesel in these generators, the plants would have more room in their allotted emissions to produce more electricity without producing more pollution.

      Biodiesel is preferred by ocean-going vessels as if there is a fuel spill the environmental damage is nowhere near that of a petro-diesel spill.

      It’s a potentially valuable product.

      But government support for it should be minimal and at the state level, unless for some very valid reason it were to be determined to also be of importance to national security. It’s a good enough product to attract private investor attention and research, and shouldn’t need much of a helping hand to get past the speed bumps now limiting its production.

      I do not advocate cutting back on oil and gas production, or even keeping it at current levels. I am a belt-and-suspenders kind of person, and like backup on top of backup.

      But in the near future, I see a biodiesel-fueled Jetta or similar vehicle, that will carry four adults at highway speeds getting 45 MPG or more, with a range of about 600 miles, a much more realistic solution to various problems than the so-called “Smart” Car or the electric car fad

      • Amazona March 31, 2012 / 11:48 am

        BTW, hemp oil based biodiesel is emerald green. Talk about an advertising campaign! Since we are so hemp-phobic in this nation, perhaps we should encourage a hemp-oil pipeline from Canada to supply biodiesel plants in the U.S.

      • Retired Spook March 31, 2012 / 12:16 pm


        Any idea what it would take in terms of investment, land area, etc. for algae-based biofuel to become a significant (say 25%) percentage of our transport fuel mix?

      • Amazona March 31, 2012 / 5:33 pm

        No, that would be a huge calculation. But I was told, a couple of years ago, that it would be profitable if diesel was at $5.00 a gallon. I believe that may have been based on some degree of government subsidy, such as the ethanol subsidy.

        My point is that the technology is there, the various discrete components are there, and if there is a market there is enough upside to encourage private investment and research.

        Some major oil company is already working on the algae thing, according to a national ad campaign that ran for a while last year. I don’t think they would be looking into this if it were not considered a viable technology.

        BTW, the main profit to Big Oil is not necessarily drilling, as that is handled for the most part by independent drilling companies, and then the product is sold to the oil companies. Their profit is from refining and selling. And if they can refine pure light crude, instead of heavy tarry crude from marginal sources, or other varying qualities of crude, they are going to do it. And if they can buy or produce this pure light crude at a cost competitive with what it costs them to buy from the drilling companies, they will.

        So I am merely pointing out that while I am completely against the bogus “green” campaign of Obama, et al, finding it to be more in the pursuit of political power than of actual benefit to “THE PLANET”, I would hate to see legitimate alternatives lumped in with the scams and screwups that have marked so much of what has passed for alternative energy research and development.

        Solar power is a legitimate technology, but it has gotten where it is now due to state incentives and the free market, and the glaring disasters, like Solyndra, are not due as much to defects in the concept or even the technology as to corruption and mismanagement.

        Some biofuels have promising potential, but it has to be developed in the private sector, or with minimal incentivizing from state and business entities, not due to infusions of OPM via the feds.

    • J. R. Babcock April 1, 2012 / 10:17 am

      Last year, world biofuel production surpassed 670,000 barrels per day, the equivalent of about 1 percent of the global transport fuel market.

      I’m not sure it’s even 1%. That 670,000 barrels translates to 28.14 million gallons. The US alone uses 178 million gallons of gasoline per day (not counting all the diesel vehicles and fleet vehicles running on CNG). 28.14 million gallons of biofuel is only equal to 16% of US daily gasoline consumption, so if the entire global production of biofuels was consumed in the US in place of gasoline, it would last about 4 hours of each day.

    • bozo April 2, 2012 / 4:54 am

      Technological developments like biofuel production methods often have a logarithmic development curve:


      1% in ten years can mean 10% in 20 years and 100% in forty. Combined with greater efficiencies, these lofty goals could be attainable much sooner.

      Doing nothing achieves nothing.

      • tiredoflibbs April 2, 2012 / 6:12 am

        so creepy assclown, taking 50-100 years to develop other technologies (like biofuels) is better than taking 10 years to develop existing technologies (like drilling in ANWR)? At least that is the liberal dumbed down talking point – drilling in new areas takes too long.

        No one is advocating doing nothing. Using the force of government to develop these technologies by not developing untouched oil/gas areas is what is being criticized. Let’s cut off our existing supplies, continue to purchase oil from foreign nations (hostile nations if you listen to another leftist dumbed down talking point) and force Americans to develop and switch their energy sources, all the while suppressing our economy with higher energy costs, food costs, etc. etc.

        Wow, what a sound energy policy there……

      • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 8:41 am

        Doing nothing achieves nothing.

        It’s cheaper, though. Heh — sorry, couldn’t resist.

        Seriously, we should be pursuing energy technologies that are better and cheaper, not ones like corn-based ethanol and wind turbines, neither of which can survive without massive government subsidies. And that’s not even considering the unintended consequences of both. Ethanol is ruining small engines and wind turbines are killing birds and bats by the tens of thousands.

      • Amazona April 2, 2012 / 11:10 am

        Interesting theory.

        Let me repeat this: Interesting THEORY.

        Like all theories, it still needs to be proved. You state it as if it were established fact.

        As for “Doing nothing achieves nothing” this is what we have been saying about drilling in ANWR for a decade or more now. When we were told, ten years ago, that drilling in ANWR would be foolish because the results would not be seen for at least ten years, we replied “Doing nothing achieves nothing” and if we were to start in, say, 2002 we would be seeing the results by 2012.

  3. Amazona March 31, 2012 / 11:25 am

    Not about oil, but about taxes: I just got this from my realtor, who says the National Association of Realtors is fighting this.

    Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That’s $3,800 on a $100,000 home,

    Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% sales tax. If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.

    This is evidently in the so-called “health care” bill. No wonder they had to make it over 2000 pages long—it takes a lot of words to discourage so many people from reading each one.

    So, we have a severely depressed housing market, with sales of pre-owned homes down nearly every quarter, and the market values of those homes already slashed as much as 50%, sometimes even more. What to do?

    Why, hammer the homeowner even harder by hitting him with a tax if he does manage to sell his home. What could be a better economic “stimulus” than this?

    And it is to go into effect after the 2012 elections. Hmmmmm

    Anyone know if this note from her is true?

    • Retired Spook March 31, 2012 / 12:19 pm

      Here is what Snopes says about it.

      • Amazona March 31, 2012 / 5:38 pm

        I thought I remembered some income requirements, but it still strikes me as another stealth tax..

        But, lookin’ for that silver linin’, the way things are going, fewer and fewer people are going to be in that high tax bracket and fewer and fewer homes are going to be sold for a profit.

  4. Retired Spook March 31, 2012 / 2:55 pm

    This essay about Earth Hour in a guest post by Ross McKitrick at Wattsupwiththat dovetails nicely with Obama and the Left’s demagogic view of everything that has made our modern world possible.

    Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the third world should realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based power generating stations. After all, that’s how the west developed.

    The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity.

    Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It encourages the sanctimonious gesture of turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in deference to some ill-defined abstraction called “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of continuous, reliable electricity.

    People who see virtue in doing without electricity should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there too.

    I don’t want to go back to nature. Travel to a zone hit by earthquakes, floods and hurricanes to see what it’s like to go back to nature. For humans, living in “nature” meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work for the end of poverty and relief from disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.

    • neocon1 April 1, 2012 / 11:58 am

      didnt the OWS bring in GENERATORS? ROTFLMAO…..

  5. Retired Spook March 31, 2012 / 11:35 pm


    • bardolf March 31, 2012 / 11:53 pm

      I thought you went to Miami of Ohio? Not a Buckeye fan I see.

      • Retired Spook March 31, 2012 / 11:58 pm

        I did graduate from Miami, and normally I would have been rooting for OSU, but my oldest daughter graduated from Kansas and my son-in-law got his masters there. They still live in Lawrence. This was supposed to be a rebuilding year for KU. They lost their entire starting 5 from last year.

      • neocon1 April 1, 2012 / 10:50 am

        more of Ubomas destruction of America

      • neocon1 April 1, 2012 / 11:17 am

        14 Shot, 2 Dead During Wake Outside Florida Funeral Home…

        Hint…….it wasnt Canadian snow birds.

  6. neocon1 April 1, 2012 / 11:21 am

    the FIASCO continues while the GOP governor, attorney general, and ALL Florida politicians are MISSING in ACTION

    ‘We want an arrest. Shot in the chest’…

    NAACP rips Sharpton call for escalation…

    Gun group opens defense fund for Zimmerman…

    Neighbor saw bandages, swollen nose…

  7. neocon1 April 1, 2012 / 11:26 am

    “I am 17 years old. I’m a high school student. I’m a young black man,” Mitchell said in a fiery speech that moved the crowd. “I could be the next Trayvon Martin

    YES you could ….all you have to do is commit the FELONY of aggravated battery on a defenseless person laying on the ground with a broken nose, split open head screaming for help….and you could very well join the thug in Hell.
    I say make it a lifes mission.

    • neocon1 April 1, 2012 / 11:56 am

      THANKS GOP we sure want to vote MORE of you spineless POS this november
      maybe the mittens will handle this…OH wait

      • feelthefang April 1, 2012 / 3:27 pm

        “THANKS GOP we sure want to vote MORE of you spineless POS this november
        maybe the mittens will handle this…OH wait”


        Have a very nice Sunday everyone. 🙂

    • patriotdad1 April 1, 2012 / 11:34 pm

      Deleted – bringing up the poor quality police station video of Zimmerman is way off topic //Moderator

      • neocon1 April 2, 2012 / 10:01 am

        Never mind that obAMATEUR LIES about “subsidies” – “But on top of these record profits, oil companies are also getting billions a year — billions a year in taxpayer subsidies “. There are no tax payer “subsidies” to the oil companies. These are legitimate TAX DEDUCTIONS that any manufacturer can take from the taxes they pay.

        More anti business, class warfare by the radical communist regime.

        NO mention that the oil companies EARN around THREE CENTS profit on each gallon while the govt TAKES around SIXTY CENTS and produces NOTHING for it.

      • Amazona April 2, 2012 / 11:06 am

        I’m concerned about Obama’s rhetoric—his new mantra is that people have to choose between the oil companies and the nation, or between the oil companies and the people.

        We have seen him fan the flames of racial discord, both directly and through surrogates. He has said, publicly, that the police department was wrong when they apprehended a black man breaking into a house, and that the young man killed recently in Florida looked like his son would look, in both instances implying that racism was the cause of the two actions in question.

        He instructed a group of Hispanics to identify their “enemies” —-that would be American citizens — and act against them.

        He has worked tirelessly to foment and add to class warfare, constantly trying to pit one economic demographic against another.

        He has appointed a racist Attorney General who, according to people in his department, has stated that he will not prosecute black-on-white crime.

        He has done or said nothing to calm racial discord when it has been created and then fed by incessant hate-mongering by people who, because they have not been publicly chastised and contradicted by the President, seem to be acting as his surrogates to actively promote racial divisiveness.

        And now he has chosen one American industry to demonize, and is openly telling Americans that this industry is an enemy—that is, that people are now faced with the choice of the oil companies or their country.

        As bad as the economic picture in this nation is, I think we can recover from the fiscal damage done by this administration far more quickly than we can repair the damage done to the very fabric of our country by this callous and calculated determination to pit Americans against Americans, to generate resentment and discord and hate and possibly even violence in the pursuit of political power.

        Under Obama and his shadow government and surrogate activists, we are no longer a nation of Americans, but a geographic location in which live disparate and warring groups of people who dislike, distrust, and even hate those in other groups.

  8. Amazona April 2, 2012 / 11:29 am

    Remember, I like algae as a source of renewable energy, and I am sick and tired of opponents mischaracterizing it as “pond scum”. So I am posting the following not as an indictment of the technology but as general information.

    1. From the ALGAE BIOENERGY SOLUTIONS, Inc (ABS) web site:

    “Over the next few years demand will continue to rapidly increase for clean renewable fuels to replace or extend petroleum. Part of the demand is coming from the aviation industry which must meet new European mandates for twenty per cent renewable fuels in aviation jet fuel and airport ground vehicles. Other demand is coming from the biodiesel and ethanol industry which must find non food based feed stocks to make biodiesel and ethanol. Algae oil with its low cold flow attributes is the ideal replacement for soy bean oil and other food based feed stocks to make biodiesel. The remaining algae dry product is a valuable co-product which is being sold from $10,000.00 to $30,000.00 a ton as nutricitricals supplement. The algae dry product can also be sold as animal and fish feed, and are an excellent source for making cellulosic ethanol (replacing corn as a feed stock).

    In Phase II, ABS will own a substantial ownership interest in the Green Valley biodiesel plant and will complete the first of several algae production facilities. Phase Two requires $10,000,000 equity investment from this private placement. ABS will enhance the equity investment with various federal and state grants and other programs currently available for this project. For example, ABS would apply for the 30% grant provided by the 2010 extension of the Stimulus Bill or elect to take 30% tax credit that will continue after the Stimulus bill grants expires.

    Costs for production, harvesting, and separation of algae oil are decreasing monthly. The Department of Defense Research Agency, DARPA, announced in 2010 that algae oil can now be produced for $2.00 a gallon, which is comparable to petroleum oil at $75.00 a barrel.”


    From several sites including CNS…….

    “……algae companies have been banking on administration support from Day One. In December 2008, when the White House announced the nomination of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the CEO of Florida-based biofuels startup Algenol, Paul Woods, exulted to Time magazine: “You see this smile on my face? It’s not going away. Everyone is really excited by this.”

    The next year, Woods and Algenol — dubbed “Obama’s favorite algae company” by Forbes magazine — racked up $25 million in federal stimulus grants from Chu. Say cheese.

    Yet another algae-based biofuels developer, Sapphire Energy, has absorbed $105 million in stimulus funds and loan guarantees even as doubts about the practicality, efficiency and viability of pond-scum fuels multiply. Sapphire’s CEO, Jason Pyle, has donated exclusively to Democratic campaigns, candidates and committees — and his company’s website reads like a satellite White House communications office:

    — “President Obama Announces $14 Million Funding Opportunity To Develop Transportation Fuels from Algae”;

    — “President Obama’s Secure Energy Blueprint — Industry Reaction”;

    — “Obama Defends Energy Policy, Hitting Back At Presidential Candidates.”

    Another prominent DOE recipient in the world of blue-green sludge? San Francisco-based Solazyme.

    The manufacturer of algae-based renewable fuels has scooped up more than $21 million in federal stimulus grants and contracts. Solazyme’s ties to the White House and the Democratic establishment in Washington are myriad. ………………. Solazyme’s “strategic advisers” include TJ Glauthier — a member of the Obama presidential transition team who just happened to work “on the energy-sector portion of the 2009 stimulus bill.”

    Andrew Stiles of the Washington Free Beacon writes that Glauthier:

    “serves on the board of EnerNOC Inc., a company that provides demand-response services to electric utility firms. EnerNOC won a $10 million contract with the Department of Energy Resources in 2010 despite being underbid by competitors, the Boston Herald reported. Glauthier also served on the board of SunRun, a solar financing company that received a $6.7 million federal grant in 2010.”

    And in total, Glauthier adds, “Solazyme officials including Glauthier have contributed at least $360,000 to Democrats since 2007.”

    Thanks to one of President Obama’s executive orders, Solazyme secured a $12 million contract with the U.S. Navy to unload hundreds of thousands of gallons of biofuel — priced at an estimated four to seven times the normal cost of regular jet fuel.


    Now, I object to the demagoguery of denigrating commercial algae production as mere “pond scum” as I have said many times and will continue to say. I think this is viable technology and offers an important adjunct to petro-fuels.

    NOT A REPLACEMENT for petro-fuels, but a fuel to fill some specific niches.

    I also said, and repeat, that I think incentives ought to be at the state level, unless there is compelling evidence that the development of this technology is necessary for national security.

    • Amazona April 2, 2012 / 11:45 am

      The point I am trying to make here is that of the inherent corruption in having a president who uses his office to attack an entire industry and at the same time uses the power of that office to promote a competing industry, as well as channeling federal money into the competing industry.

      Even when I agree with the value of the competing industry, I strongly object to the abuse of presidential power in promoting it, and find the demonization of the oil industry reprehensible and another abuse of the office of the presidency.

  9. dbschmidt April 2, 2012 / 1:41 pm

    Do not want to cross-post but this deserves to be on both threads. Posted on “Either / Or” thread headed with “1980, President Carter and the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act (P.L. 96-223).” by this poster.

Comments are closed.