Town Square

Post a New Topic

Republican About-Face on Big Oil

Original post made by Cindy Cross, Parkside, on Apr 25, 2011

Republican About-Face on Big Oil by Cindy Cross
House Speaker John Boehner (Ohio-Rep.) announced Monday that Congress should consider cutting the $4 Billion in subsidies and tax incentives oil companies currently receive.
Boehner told "ABC World News" the government is low on revenues and oil companies "ought to be paying their fair share." Boehner said he was confident that Obama would lose the 2012 election if gas prices were $4 or $5 per gallon.
Obama unsuccessfully fought against big oil during the last Congress; wanting the money to go towards green energy alternatives and research. Congress ignored Obama's request.
Oil companies argue that abolishing tax incentives would cost jobs and increase our dependence on foreign oil.
Why the sudden about face from the Republicans who are traditionally pro oil company?
With oil up to $110 per barrel, and average gas prices going past $4.00 per gallon, American's are fed up. The Republicans are listening and possibly see an opportunity to help them in 2012.
Are Boehner and the Republicans trying to win over American voters by taking on the oil companies? Perhaps Obama didn't make take his fight against big oil loud enough. If Congress agrees with Boehner, and America finally gleans taxes from big oil—the Republicans would be hailed as heroes.
The Republican argument that Obama is a poor leader may have some merit if Boehner prevails against big oil.
How can the Democrats save face if the proposal by Boehner passes?

Comments (42)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Vixctim
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2011 at 12:06 am

Considering the depths of the horrors our US economy is trying to cope with, the last thing we need is more hits on our economy.
I can still see Speaker Pelosi's buck teeth talking about foreign oil.....at the same time she was daily blocking all forms of US oil, like shale, delaying natual gas, and other forms of energy. She stopped or blocked US drilling, off-shore drilling....all the while lying to us that wind and solar would take care of us. WELL, elec cars are being sold, without enough power to 'plug into'....and of course wind and solar combined are still 5% of our supply. We are losing valuable time, because of the political roadblocks she created AGAINST our country. Zealots like her did more harm than most enemies in sticking us behind the 8 ball. Sadly, Americans are her victims. The cost of FOREIGN fuel this week is strangling most Americans,like the ones having trouble making their house payments and those that are unemployed.
Cindy you just popped up this month. Are you based in DC and check in on active blogs in the country, fixing the talking points of the week ? ? I've never seen your name around Pleasanton.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by nightowl
a resident of Birdland
on Apr 26, 2011 at 12:21 am

Sounds like a good idea, but I surmise another cynical Republican attempt to attract voters. Of course, just because Boehner suggests that subsidies to big oil be cut doesn't mean he'll aggressively promote the idea. My hunch is that any Republican-instigated move in this direction would be offset with loopholes and other protections. The strategy would be to give the appearance of going after big oil without actually going after it. To actually go after big oil, however, I think is something most Republicans will resist, just like they resisted removal of tax cuts for the rich.

Obama's best strategic move would be to lasso any congressional move in this direction and call it his own. The congressional move is consistent with what most Democrats want, and so its 'appropriation' as a truly Democratic one would play well with the public.

Knowing Obama, he'll embrace movement in this direction and attempt to turn it into a bipartisan effort. Not such a bad idea. At the end of the day, Obama remains the best man for the job.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Casual Reader
a resident of Happy Valley
on Apr 26, 2011 at 12:27 am

Wow, there you have it. Vixctim's angry, meandering rant against Nancy Pelosi, and a thoughtful line of reason from a Pleasanton liberal, Nightowl. Anyone surprised why the tea party is drying up?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ethyl's mom
a resident of another community
on Apr 26, 2011 at 8:10 am

How about if we all pay our fair share. Maybe Obama's buddy at GE could pay a little tax. Get rid of all "special interest" breaks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by radical
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2011 at 8:23 am

This looks like it belongs on dailykos rather than a Pleasanton political forum. Cindy Cross just wrote a blog about "fluff journalism" and proceeds to produce this pablum on political angling within the congress.
There is no significance to the $4 Billion, it is, almost quite literally, a drop in the barrel when the annual revenues of one large oil company exceed $370 billion
After her initial attempt at opining, "Is the tea party heartless", I am going to ask one question only, Will the Pleasanton weekly also publish a conservative pundit?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by gordice
a resident of Del Prado
on Apr 26, 2011 at 9:00 am

'radical' -- as in radical ignorance -- can only get excited when cuts are mentioned about NPR or Planned Parenthood. otherwise, 4 billion in subsidies to an industry that makes untold billions in profits is just a drop in the barrel. 'radical' bellows in an ignoramus's indignation about teachers making a decent salary; but so much as mention reducing subsidies to his revered oil companies and he off to the bloviating races. this is tea party logic, folks. that's why the tp is a dying species.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by radical
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2011 at 10:11 am

In reality, the profitability of big oil companies is a matter of public record, and the republican angling on NPR and planned parenthood are more diversions from debating the actual size of government and the astronomic level of deficit spending.
The progressives cannot document a single instance of a single tea partiers complaint "about teachers making a decent salary" (no doubt purposefully ambiguated by the previous poster) -- the left once again show why they are losing in the arena of ideas


 +   Like this comment
Posted by documenter
a resident of Happy Valley
on Apr 26, 2011 at 10:33 am

'The progressives cannot document a single instance of a single tea partiers complaint "about teachers making a decent salary"'

This is one of radical's less idiotic remarks compared to his other doozers, but it's idiotic nevertheless. Proportion? Perspective? No one home. (See virtually any and every PW thread on Measure E. Judge for yourself.)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by gorio
a resident of Danbury Park
on Apr 26, 2011 at 11:57 am

If "Radical" would stop being irradical long enough to actually read the posts of Ms. Cross he/she would find that her reporting has been balanced left to right and is usually in the form of think tank style questions on the political issues we all face as a nation. Her {cross} personal opinion has been restrained. It is apparent that radical never made it past the titles of previous crossroads articles and left the rest to his own self proclaimed interpretation of what he thinks should have been written. This way of political {non} thinking is the biggest challenge our leaders face while the common citizen can just pass radical's idiotic spouting as just that.
An empty can rattles the most.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by radical
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2011 at 12:06 pm

still waiting, just. document. one.

ability to call the other person an idiot and make a claim does not make you correct


 +   Like this comment
Posted by gordice
a resident of Del Prado
on Apr 26, 2011 at 4:00 pm

No, but even as an idiot can pose and posture all he wants, he's still an idiot. Instead of waiting for an answer to his ridiculous query, he'd be better off going to the library where ... oh, never mind. I'm certain it is too late.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Apr 26, 2011 at 4:12 pm

jimf01 is a registered user.

Casual Reader - tea party is drying up
gordice - tp is a dying species

Outside of the obvious conclusion that both of these comments are from the same person, it is apparent, from Scott Brown in Massachusetts, to the Republican blowout in November 2010, on to the Wisconsin victory (being repeated in other states as we speak) right down to the Measure E battle in Pleasanton, that the TEA Party is alive and well.

The media would love to follow the talking points of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and believe one CNN poll to mean that the TEA Party is losing influence or power. The liberal media machine and the Democrats in Congress can slobber all over each other all day.

Cindy Cross is prima facie evidence of all of this. Let's have a look at a few quotes from the PW's new "think tank style" commenter whose "personal opinion has been restrained"

Why the sudden about face from the Republicans who are traditionally pro oil company?
How can the Democrats save face if the proposal by Boehner passes?

Mr. Hoenig...is saying that the U.S. government should slash certain programs and leave certain segments of society out in the wind—"shrinking government." (FALSE statement, blatant straw man for the purpose of conservative bashing)

Trump is supporting the standard Republican ideals such as pro-life, anti-gay marriage, promising to not raise taxes, and anti-Obama care. (ALL of these are OPPOSITE of Trump's stated positions in the past)

Of course the classic "Is the Tea Party Heartless? By Cindy Cross"

I would also ask - will the PW also publish a conservative pundit or are the "crossroads" just a couple of one-way streets?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by big yawn for jimbo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2011 at 4:40 pm

As per usual, pointless, directionless, incoherent. All living testament to a party without a brain.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by obmij
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 26, 2011 at 8:13 pm

Regarding the tea party -they seem to have done fairly well in the last elections for a pointless, directionless, incoherent organization without a leader.
Regarding the oil companies - they don't pay taxes. No business does. People pay taxes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by clarence
a resident of Charter Oaks
on Apr 26, 2011 at 10:08 pm

obmij,

I'm requesting that you turn this into a genuine educational experience for us. In your own words, might you kindly explain what you meant by: "Regarding the oil companies - they don't pay taxes. No business does. People pay taxes." Please, in your own words in a way that clearly spells out what it is you mean, and what you are driving at. Thank you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 26, 2011 at 10:18 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

clarence,

Look up "tax incidence".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by clarence
a resident of Charter Oaks
on Apr 26, 2011 at 10:31 pm



I was hoping for obmij to provide a clear explanation in his own words; instead, Stacey provides a rather unhelpful citation of a concept that strikes me as having no relevance whatsoever to obmij's puzzling claim.

I realize that some contributors to this post consistently have a difficult time being understood. The cryptic recommendation to look up 'tax incidence' seems to be a case in point. Opaque reference to a concept embedded in a largely discredited economic view I don't think qualifies as a genuine learning experience.

So, perhaps either obmij or Stacey, in their own words, will educate us on what it means to say, "Regarding the oil companies - they don't pay taxes. No business does. People pay taxes." Still awaiting a clear and coherent response.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by esbc
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Apr 26, 2011 at 10:45 pm

www.google.com

Here you go Clarence. Now be a big boy and go figure it out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by clarence
a resident of Charter Oaks
on Apr 26, 2011 at 10:48 pm

In case I wasn't clear, permit me to reiterate. Here's obmij's comment again: "Regarding the oil companies - they don't pay taxes. No business does. People pay taxes." I find the statement to be incoherent at best.

Stacey, um, 'jumps to the rescue' with a call to "Look up 'tax incidence.'" I find this contribution to be no less incoherent, as well as being pointless and directionless.

I do recognize the inability of some to clearly express themselves by means of using their own words. This difficulty contributes not only to incoherence; it also reflects unclear thinking.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gordice
a resident of Del Prado
on Apr 26, 2011 at 10:54 pm

Clarence,

I think you are being far more polite than the posters obmij, Stacey, and esbc deserve. Their responses to you are what you'd expect from idiots. They are unable to put clear and coherent thoughts into words. Their thinking processes are severely impaired, can't you recognize that?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nightowl
a resident of Birdland
on Apr 26, 2011 at 11:03 pm

They're angry and caught up in a largely discredited ideology. They have no words beyond that which the ideology provides. At times they'll present numbers as 'data', but they always stumble for lack of having provided any accompanying evidence of clear and rational thought. One in particular can only resort to hateful name-calling; the other is constantly attempting to assure readers that what she has said isn't in fact what she meant to say. Clowns. All of them.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by obmij
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 27, 2011 at 7:48 am

Clarence, pardon me if I bow out. I could give you links that would provide you with the information you seek but if you are really interested, you could easily find the information yourself. It is not a wisdom I could provide "in my own words" as you say but rather simple facts that need no rewording.
I will say "in my own words", judging from the some of the comments that came after yours, that this forum has become nothing more than a blog and honestly, not very interesting. Regardless, there's work to do so good luck and goodbye- say or believe whatever you will. : )


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mr. Science
a resident of another community
on Apr 27, 2011 at 8:45 am

Before we go attacking big oil, we all have to think about this.

Without life, chemicals themselves would be impossible.

Think about it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Clarence
a resident of Charter Oaks
on Apr 27, 2011 at 9:43 am


In other words, obmij is too gutless and clueless to support his (and Stacey's) incoherent claims. He criticizes this post for becoming too much like a blog. He is troubled when people use full sentences in order to express coherent thoughts. He'd prefer, no doubt, that the post simply be a propaganda board that permits false, incoherent bits of tea party graffiti to be thrown up on the wall. He has been requested to defend his nonsense. In stating an unwillingness to do so, he has confirmed what a small person he is.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mr. Science
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 27, 2011 at 10:27 am

I stand by my sentence:

Without life, chemicals themselves would be impossible.

Think about it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 27, 2011 at 9:25 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I made no claims here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by nightowl
a resident of Birdland
on Apr 27, 2011 at 10:30 pm

April 26, at 10:18 pm, Stacey, a registered user of PW wrote the following:

'clarence,

Look up "tax incidence".'

Incoherent, yes. But an embedded claim is being made within the 'invitation'. Denying it doesn't make the claim or its incoherence go away.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 27, 2011 at 11:02 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

There's nothing incoherent about tax incidence.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 27, 2011 at 11:08 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

OK, I have to ask... just what the heck is an "embedded claim"? Is that like one of those conspiracy theories?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by nightowl
a resident of Birdland
on Apr 27, 2011 at 11:14 pm

Oh, so now she admits to putting forward the claim. But it remains incoherent, which is why perhaps someone has experienced so much frustration in terms of being understood by others.

You might just as well have uttered 'brussel sprouts'. They are equally incoherent, because neither 'tax incidence' nor 'brussel sprouts' is provided with a context: i.e., both are without text.

Stacey, go eat brussel sprouts. As far as I can make out, brussel sprouts are no less far removed from bringing coherence to obmij's remarks than is tax incidence. Even the cognitively deficient obmij felt a need to flee from the incoherence of his remarks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 27, 2011 at 11:15 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Cindy,

Perhaps you should do a blog post on tax incidence in order to clarify any incoherence perceived by other posters. Educate the masses so that they are able to understand the working concepts underlying the discussion. Of course, you may be accused of embedding claims, but I guess that's the kind of conspiracy theories that come with the territory.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by nightowl
a resident of Birdland
on Apr 27, 2011 at 11:54 pm

Perhaps Stacey, who raised the concept of tax incidence, might be so kind as to illuminate us, in her own words. By so doing, I would hope she'd show how the concept gives support (or not) to obmij's idiotic remarks. Or does Stacey perhaps agree that obmij's remarks are idiotic?


Re. 'embedded claims'. Nothing conspiratorial about it. All speech acts -- whether they be promises, warnings, requests, or any 1000 or so others -- all carry in addition to their illocutionary meaning a propositional content. That is, they purport to claim something while simultaneously expressing an illocutionary meaning. In examples of promises and the like, the claim is embedded in the speech act. See for example the illustrious Cal Berkeley Professor of Philosophy of Language and Brain Science, John Searle. Especially see his Theory of Speech Acts (Cambridge University Press).

Giving this some context: omjib offered one of his routinely ridiculous statements. Clarence asked for clarification from omjib (which I realize is like asking a goat to fly). Stacey then chimed in with an explicit invitation for Clarence to read up on 'tax incidence'. Contained in her invitation (illocutionary level) was a propositional claim, viz., that 'tax incidence' would help Clarence clear up omjib's incoherence. Nothing conspiratorial here. Only stating the facts. Stacey made a claim, then denied making a claim, and only after being presented with irrefutable evidence, she owned up to the claim. Did she attempt to defend or clarify the claim? No. Did she even attempt to explain how her claim was not as incoherent as it appeared (and still appears) to be? No. Instead, she acted like ombij. In all his wisdom, ombij referred Clarence to google.com. Stacey ... appealed to a blogger to perhaps shed some light on her (and omjib's) own incoherence.

In order for Stacey to best digest my remarks, she should eat her brussel sprouts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 28, 2011 at 12:17 am

Stacey is a registered user.

"Contained in her invitation (illocutionary level) was a propositional claim, viz., that 'tax incidence' would help Clarence clear up omjib's incoherence."

See?! You DID understand the context! It wasn't incoherent at all. Causality still rules the day! Of COURSE understanding a working concept underlying another poster's claim would clear up any perceived incoherence, or are you refuting that? If someone didn't understand it, they should go look up the concept, become educated. I simply put a name on the concept to help other posters in their quest to be informed. This whole time I thought you were saying that I was making the same claim as obmij's about the oil business not paying a tax because you put my name next to "his ... claims". Thanks for the clarification!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by nightowl
a resident of Birdland
on Apr 28, 2011 at 12:48 am

I'm not convinced that Stacey understands how her embedded propositional claim fit into the context. Any reasonable reader would have to deduce that Stacey's invitation to Clarence to read up on 'tax incidence' was meant to help Clarence disambiguate ombij's incoherent remarks. Inasmuch as my understanding of 'tax incidence', so far as I can fathom, helps not a bit in understanding ombij's incoherent remarks, I must also deduce that Stacey's invitation to Clarence was no less incoherent than were ombig's remarks.

But I've acknowledged that the problem might be my own. So I have asked and I ask again: perhaps Stacey could spell out, in her own words, how in the world 'tax incidence' might help clarify ombig's incoherent remarks? Because without Stacey spelling out what she meant by inviting Clarence to read up on 'tax incidence', her claim is incoherent. It makes as much sense to say: go read up on brussel sprouts.

This isn't a matter of 'causality' ruling the day which appears to be central to Stacey's mode of communicating with her readers. Causality works with the object world; animals cause one another to react through signals, gestures, etc. Humans are different. Our words do not cause, in any sense of the meaning of the term. Perhaps that is why Stacey gets in so much trouble with people she attempts to communicate with. She means her words to 'cause' people to act in one way or another. In genuine communication, however, we seek to have our intentions understood. We might hope that once our intentions are made known, that people will then act in ways that are consistent with our intentions. But this isn't a matter of causality. At all. Unlike animals, objects -- or numbers -- we are agents who may be moved, inspired, repulsed, etc., by what people say, but we are not 'caused' by words.

So, back to the task at hand. ombij stated, "Regarding the oil companies - they don't pay taxes. No business does. People pay taxes." Clarence pleads for clarification. Stacey invites Clarence to look up 'tax incidence'. This strikes me as incoherent. She might just as well have invited Clarence to try a brussel sprout omelet. Both invites are equally incoherent.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Apr 28, 2011 at 8:50 am

nightowl, you are an argumentative nutcase adding no value to the discussion whatsoever, embedded claim or not.........
For all you demonizing 'big oil' give up your cars and plastics, lest you want to appear to be hypocritical.
Any reduction in oil company revenue will directly impact your price at the pump and in all the commodities that require transportation. Think long and hard about promoting actions that will further hamper our recovery from this obma recession/depression.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg
a resident of Birdland
on Apr 28, 2011 at 9:28 am

The bottom line is that we need to end our dependence on foreign sources of energy, if for no other reason than for national security. We need to transition to other sources, chiefly nuclear/electric/fuel cell. A gas tax can get us there. We need to make it happen.

LETS ROLL!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by translator
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 28, 2011 at 10:42 am

"nightowl, you are an argumentative nutcase adding no value to the discussion whatsoever, embedded claim or not........."

steve's witty and brilliantly clever contribution above calls for translation.

"nightowl, i have no idea what your argument is or, for that matter, most other arguments i hear on these posts. i only know how to channel my unhappiness and venom by means of spewing tea party graffiti. help me."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Apr 28, 2011 at 11:01 am

Stacey is a registered user.

I find it highly unlikely that obmij's post would be incoherent to those who can analyze statements at their illocutionary level. Please, continue.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by translator
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 28, 2011 at 11:15 am

I can't speak for Clarence, Gordice, or nightowl, but it seems to me that ombij, steve, and Stacey, all birds of a feather, are squirming at the prospect of being asked to clarify their own incoherent remarks. Am I surprised? Hardly. They had an opportunity to educate their audience, but instead have only wriggled and squirmed. Coherence is not their strong suit.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Apr 28, 2011 at 4:00 pm

translator-I made an attempt to educate those of your ilk, but at a certain point, it's just like pi$$ing in the wind. You say you can't speak for the other posters you cited, then you go on to speak for them. Why would I waste my time trying to convert posters who possess the mental disease of liberalism?
I'll leave it at this--Greg's post above was correct and I'll take it one step further--not only do we need to get off foreign oil, we need to do it primarily by driling for our own resources domestically.
We've wasted a lot of our taxpayers funds tilting at windmills and casting a shadow over the landscape with solar, only to obtain a fraction of our requirements for energy. Stop wasting time and money and provide a resource we already know works.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frank
a resident of Downtown
on Apr 28, 2011 at 4:17 pm

Why haven't Repubs moved more quickly on this, especially since they all voted to maintain oil co subsidies? Well,

Republicans got more than three-quarters of the oil and gas money contributed to political campaigns in 2010. That's more than $16 million, and that's only including the stuff that needed to be disclosed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by translator
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Apr 28, 2011 at 4:22 pm

steve,
I spoke for myself, no one else, and I think made that clear enough. I'm not a liberal, by the way. So you missed an opportunity to inform me as well as other nonliberals. I guess it's just you against the whole wide world, yes? Go figure!


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Lulu is back home!!!!
By Roz Rogoff | 5 comments | 865 views

Measure BB could pay to connect Dublin Boulevard to Livermore
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 391 views