Subsidies for oil: another lib lie exposed

[bripat9643]

The biggest subsidies for the oil companies? The Iraq and Afghan wars.

In other words, there are no tax breaks. Why didn't you just claim the entire defense budget was a subsidy to them?

 

[The Rabbi]

Iraq War was not for cheap oil for Americans it was for big profits for transnational oil companies,

So the war was fought to increase oil supply, which lowers the price of oil, so that oil companies could reap huge obscene profits by selling their existing sources of oil for less money, right?

Geez, libs are bad at economics, math, and a bunch of other disciplines.

Iraq was producing oil before the Iraq war , America didn't start talking war until Sadam kicked the American oil companies out of Iraq and nationalized the oil fields. And even if the world oil market was a free market supply isn't the only equation.

Yes they were producing oil. They were under embargo prior to the Iraq war so that presumably kept some or most of their oil off the market. Additionally they were not maintaining and improving their oil drilling and pumping so they were not producing up to capacity. With Saddam gone the way was cleared for Iraq to produce more oil and market it worldwide without restrictions. This of course increases supply of oil, generally driving down prices, other things being equal.
So you have failed even to provide some coherent account of whatever the fuck point you think you are making.

 

[Truthseeker420]

So the war was fought to increase oil supply, which lowers the price of oil, so that oil companies could reap huge obscene profits by selling their existing sources of oil for less money, right?

Geez, libs are bad at economics, math, and a bunch of other disciplines.

Iraq was producing oil before the Iraq war , America didn't start talking war until Sadam kicked the American oil companies out of Iraq and nationalized the oil fields. And even if the world oil market was a free market supply isn't the only equation.

Yes they were producing oil. They were under embargo prior to the Iraq war so that presumably kept some or most of their oil off the market. Additionally they were not maintaining and improving their oil drilling and pumping so they were not producing up to capacity. With Saddam gone the way was cleared for Iraq to produce more oil and market it worldwide without restrictions. This of course increases supply of oil, generally driving down prices, other things being equal.
So you have failed even to provide some coherent account of whatever the fuck point you think you are making.

The point was Iraq war is an oil subsidy.

 

[bripat9643]

Iraq was producing oil before the Iraq war , America didn't start talking war until Sadam kicked the American oil companies out of Iraq and nationalized the oil fields. And even if the world oil market was a free market supply isn't the only equation.

Yes they were producing oil. They were under embargo prior to the Iraq war so that presumably kept some or most of their oil off the market. Additionally they were not maintaining and improving their oil drilling and pumping so they were not producing up to capacity. With Saddam gone the way was cleared for Iraq to produce more oil and market it worldwide without restrictions. This of course increases supply of oil, generally driving down prices, other things being equal.
So you have failed even to provide some coherent account of whatever the fuck point you think you are making.

The point was Iraq war is an oil subsidy.

That's what every moron believes.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The biggest subsidies for the oil companies? The Iraq and Afghan wars.

Really? How so?

 

[The Rabbi]

Iraq was producing oil before the Iraq war , America didn't start talking war until Sadam kicked the American oil companies out of Iraq and nationalized the oil fields. And even if the world oil market was a free market supply isn't the only equation.

Yes they were producing oil. They were under embargo prior to the Iraq war so that presumably kept some or most of their oil off the market. Additionally they were not maintaining and improving their oil drilling and pumping so they were not producing up to capacity. With Saddam gone the way was cleared for Iraq to produce more oil and market it worldwide without restrictions. This of course increases supply of oil, generally driving down prices, other things being equal.
So you have failed even to provide some coherent account of whatever the fuck point you think you are making.

The point was Iraq war is an oil subsidy.

Actually it was a subsidy to the consumer in keeping prices low. Pres Bush would appreciate a hand written thank you note from you.

 

[Mr. H.]

Nobody believes Fox Noise.

Ongoing TCS Analysis of the FY2012 Budget Proposal | Taxpayers for Common Sense

"Holes in the tax code". So that's what they're calling it these days?
Total bullshit. These are identical provisions er... "holes" that are afforded others in manufacturing including agriculture. To single out oil and gas is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Where the fuck in the budget does it address true subsidies - those handed to agriculture? Those polluting teat-sucking fuckers get away with such bullshit it's almost laughable.

You're not a truthseeker, you're a teatsucker like the rest of the Libidiots who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Mr. H.]

The biggest subsidies for the oil companies? The Iraq and Afghan wars.

Where's all the extra oil?? Should be easy for you to point out then.... I am sure you have all the correlating and corroborating facts to support your assumption

What extra oil?

Oh..wait..DiamondDave..the expert economist thought that the oil companies were going to show altruism by flooding the market with cheap oil?

Really?

The market is flooded with expensive oil.

Oil Supplies Surge to 22-Year High | Transport Topics Online | Trucking, Freight Transportation and Logistics News

Where's this altruistic President I keep hearing about?

He's in as much control of prices as are the oil companies. Isn't he?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Ask any lolberal about the tax code and eventually they'll get around to decrying "subsidies for oil and gas." Of course there is no such thing. This article shows as much. But I guess if you take the view that lolberals do that all money really belongs to the government (or "the people") then you get wrench whatever you want out of tax code fallacies.
Merrill Matthews: About Those Tax Breaks for Big Oil . . . - WSJ.com

President Obama has been telling America for months that special tax breaks for the oil and gas industry must come to an end. The presidential demand always prompts puzzled gazes among tax and energy-industry experts, who ask: What special tax breaks?

Thanks in part to a bill sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland and ranking member on the House Budget Committee, it's all much clearer now. The congressman has inadvertently called attention to the fact that those special tax breaks just for the oil and gas industry don't exist. Mr. Van Hollen proposes to create some very special punishments instead. Regardless of the bill's fortunes on Capitol Hill, it has already performed a public service by illuminating the fallacy behind assaults on the industry.

Mr. Van Hollen's ''Stop the Sequester Job Loss Now Act" would raise taxes on individuals—what he calls the "Fair Share on High-Income Taxpayers"—and effectively hike taxes on the oil and gas industry by changing the way their taxes are calculated. The problem with the bill is that the so-called tax breaks the industry would lose are not specific to oil and gas at all. They are widely available to lots of industries

More at the source.

The lie that makes the rest meaningless?

Oil depletion subsidy. Mineral industries first got this under the bobbleheaded one in 1984. This is clearly a special interest tax break.

Forbes hilariously lied that "all industries have similar" blah blah blah. Actually, none outside extractive industries do. The lying cocksucker writing for Forbes compared it to depreciation, which other than starting with a "d" it isn't even similar to. Businesses depreciate measurable assets.

The Bobbleheaded B-Actor and King of the Nutballs didn't mention how one measures the unknowable. Reagan figured that in addition to tripling the debt he might as well give away some of the income the American people had counted on, because, well, why not?

Two ignorant cocksuckers who can't deal constructively with the facts negged me for this post: Rabbid and Mr ass-H.
Thanks. It's a badge of honor to have the scum of the god damned earth neg me.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The biggest subsidies for the oil companies? The Iraq and Afghan wars.

really and who is buying 80% of Iraq oil today? just read China is.....

 

[Mr. H.]

Ask any lolberal about the tax code and eventually they'll get around to decrying "subsidies for oil and gas." Of course there is no such thing. This article shows as much. But I guess if you take the view that lolberals do that all money really belongs to the government (or "the people") then you get wrench whatever you want out of tax code fallacies.
Merrill Matthews: About Those Tax Breaks for Big Oil . . . - WSJ.com

President Obama has been telling America for months that special tax breaks for the oil and gas industry must come to an end. The presidential demand always prompts puzzled gazes among tax and energy-industry experts, who ask: What special tax breaks?

Thanks in part to a bill sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland and ranking member on the House Budget Committee, it's all much clearer now. The congressman has inadvertently called attention to the fact that those special tax breaks just for the oil and gas industry don't exist. Mr. Van Hollen proposes to create some very special punishments instead. Regardless of the bill's fortunes on Capitol Hill, it has already performed a public service by illuminating the fallacy behind assaults on the industry.

Mr. Van Hollen's ''Stop the Sequester Job Loss Now Act" would raise taxes on individuals—what he calls the "Fair Share on High-Income Taxpayers"—and effectively hike taxes on the oil and gas industry by changing the way their taxes are calculated. The problem with the bill is that the so-called tax breaks the industry would lose are not specific to oil and gas at all. They are widely available to lots of industries

More at the source.

The lie that makes the rest meaningless?

Oil depletion subsidy. Forbes hilariously lied that "all industries have similar" blah blah blah. Actually, none do. The lying cocksucker writing for Forbes compared it to depreciation, which other than starting with a "d" it isn't even similar to. Businesses depreciate measurable assets.

He didn't mention how one measures the unknowable.

It's not "oil depletion subsidy", it's oil depletion allowance. Get your vocabulary straight.

Depletion is akin to depreciation. It's the act of depreciating a depletable asset.
This method of depreciation is used by operators of marginally producing wells. I think 10 barrels/day is the cutoff.

There are 2 methods of depletion... cost and percentage. I'm not saying you're lying, but you are a cocksucking idiot.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Ask any lolberal about the tax code and eventually they'll get around to decrying "subsidies for oil and gas." Of course there is no such thing. This article shows as much. But I guess if you take the view that lolberals do that all money really belongs to the government (or "the people") then you get wrench whatever you want out of tax code fallacies.
Merrill Matthews: About Those Tax Breaks for Big Oil . . . - WSJ.com

More at the source.

The lie that makes the rest meaningless?

Oil depletion subsidy. Forbes hilariously lied that "all industries have similar" blah blah blah. Actually, none do. The lying cocksucker writing for Forbes compared it to depreciation, which other than starting with a "d" it isn't even similar to. Businesses depreciate measurable assets.

He didn't mention how one measures the unknowable.

It's not "oil depletion subsidy", it's oil depletion allowance. Get your vocabulary straight.

Depletion is akin to depreciation. It's the act of depreciating a depletable asset.
This method of depreciation is used by operators of marginally producing wells. I think 10 barrels/day is the cutoff.

There are 2 methods of depletion... cost and percentage. I'm not saying you're lying, but you are a cocksucking idiot.

No, I'm not lying.

But you are clearly a fool.

No one posting here, including you, believes I'm an idiot.

But thanks for making yourself look like one with tedious technical bogusness.

 

[Mr. H.]

The lie that makes the rest meaningless?

Oil depletion subsidy. Forbes hilariously lied that "all industries have similar" blah blah blah. Actually, none do. The lying cocksucker writing for Forbes compared it to depreciation, which other than starting with a "d" it isn't even similar to. Businesses depreciate measurable assets.

He didn't mention how one measures the unknowable.

It's not "oil depletion subsidy", it's oil depletion allowance. Get your vocabulary straight.

Depletion is akin to depreciation. It's the act of depreciating a depletable asset.
This method of depreciation is used by operators of marginally producing wells. I think 10 barrels/day is the cutoff.

There are 2 methods of depletion... cost and percentage. I'm not saying you're lying, but you are a cocksucking idiot.

No, I'm not lying.

But you are clearly a fool.

No one posting here, including you, believes I'm an idiot.

But thanks for making yourself look like one with tedious technical bogusness.

After 37 years producing hydrocarbons and employing depletion allowance as an ordinary and necessary method of depreciation, I'd hardly call my experience "bogus".

Fuck off.

 

[The Rabbi]

The lie that makes the rest meaningless?

Oil depletion subsidy. Forbes hilariously lied that "all industries have similar" blah blah blah. Actually, none do. The lying cocksucker writing for Forbes compared it to depreciation, which other than starting with a "d" it isn't even similar to. Businesses depreciate measurable assets.

He didn't mention how one measures the unknowable.

It's not "oil depletion subsidy", it's oil depletion allowance. Get your vocabulary straight.

Depletion is akin to depreciation. It's the act of depreciating a depletable asset.
This method of depreciation is used by operators of marginally producing wells. I think 10 barrels/day is the cutoff.

There are 2 methods of depletion... cost and percentage. I'm not saying you're lying, but you are a cocksucking idiot.

No, I'm not lying.

But you are clearly a fool.

No one posting here, including you, believes I'm an idiot.

But thanks for making yourself look like one with tedious technical bogusness.

I dont' believe you're an idiot.
I know it for a fact.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

It's not "oil depletion subsidy", it's oil depletion allowance. Get your vocabulary straight.

Depletion is akin to depreciation. It's the act of depreciating a depletable asset.
This method of depreciation is used by operators of marginally producing wells. I think 10 barrels/day is the cutoff.

There are 2 methods of depletion... cost and percentage. I'm not saying you're lying, but you are a cocksucking idiot.

No, I'm not lying.

But you are clearly a fool.

No one posting here, including you, believes I'm an idiot.

But thanks for making yourself look like one with tedious technical bogusness.

I dont' believe you're an idiot.
I know it for a fact.

Your whole premise here is based on a lie.
I am laughing out loud at people as malignant as you.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, I'm not lying.

But you are clearly a fool.

No one posting here, including you, believes I'm an idiot.

But thanks for making yourself look like one with tedious technical bogusness.

I dont' believe you're an idiot.
I know it for a fact.

Your whole premise here is based on a lie.
I am laughing out loud at people as malignant as you.

What lie is that? The lie is that oil companies receive special subsidies and tax breaks. It isn't true and the article debunks it. You did read the article, right?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

It's not "oil depletion subsidy", it's oil depletion allowance. Get your vocabulary straight.

Depletion is akin to depreciation. It's the act of depreciating a depletable asset.
This method of depreciation is used by operators of marginally producing wells. I think 10 barrels/day is the cutoff.

There are 2 methods of depletion... cost and percentage. I'm not saying you're lying, but you are a cocksucking idiot.

No, I'm not lying.

But you are clearly a fool.

No one posting here, including you, believes I'm an idiot.

But thanks for making yourself look like one with tedious technical bogusness.

After 37 years producing hydrocarbons and employing depletion allowance as an ordinary and necessary method of depreciation, I'd hardly call my experience "bogus".

Fuck off.

The industry made it w/o the allowance before 1984. So, doing a little math we find that unlike me you might not know they did just fine before that. Or, maybe you're just another nutball cocksucker like yer pal rabbid.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Lame motherfuckers don't get to talk to me any more. Fuck off.

This post negged by Diamond Dave. Another individual who wouldn't know the facts if they bit him on the ass.

 

[DiamondDave]

The lie that makes the rest meaningless?

Oil depletion subsidy. Forbes hilariously lied that "all industries have similar" blah blah blah. Actually, none do. The lying cocksucker writing for Forbes compared it to depreciation, which other than starting with a "d" it isn't even similar to. Businesses depreciate measurable assets.

He didn't mention how one measures the unknowable.

It's not "oil depletion subsidy", it's oil depletion allowance. Get your vocabulary straight.

Depletion is akin to depreciation. It's the act of depreciating a depletable asset.
This method of depreciation is used by operators of marginally producing wells. I think 10 barrels/day is the cutoff.

There are 2 methods of depletion... cost and percentage. I'm not saying you're lying, but you are a cocksucking idiot.

No, I'm not lying.

But you are clearly a fool.

No one posting here, including you, believes I'm an idiot.

But thanks for making yourself look like one with tedious technical bogusness.

Incorrect... For I FULLY believe you to be an idiot

 

[DiamondDave]

The biggest subsidies for the oil companies? The Iraq and Afghan wars.

Where's all the extra oil?? Should be easy for you to point out then.... I am sure you have all the correlating and corroborating facts to support your assumption

Exxon Group Wins Iraq Oil Contract
Exxon Group Wins Iraq Oil Contract | War Is A Crime .org

warisacrime.org??? are you fucking serious??? LMAO

As stated or asked.. WHERE IS ALL THE EXTRA OIL???