| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Pelosi "Pounces" on Exxon |
| 2011-04-29 |
| House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi used Exxon Mobil Corp.'s first-quarter profits to again call for ending subsidies to big oil companies, escalating the already-intense war of words over energy policy. Earlier Thursday, the oil giant said its profit rose 69% to nearly $11 billion in the first quarter, as $100-a-barrel crude prices helped the company's bottom line reach levels not seen since 2008. Pelosi, like President Barack Obama earlier in the week, said oil companies don't deserve tax breaks and that the U.S. ought to be investing in clean energy. Pelosi poinces on Exxon for making 2 cents a gallon profit, while her feds garnished 18.4 cents per gallon and relentlessly refuse to reduce that tax. In the first quarter Exxon paid $10 Billion in taxes while federal government sweeheart GE paid $0 in taxes in all of 2010. The Federal government then waste those tax dollars on "green", useless energy initiatives that in reality are payoffs to Democratic butt kissers, while Exxon invests thier 2 cents into viable energy resources for America. Drain the Federal swamp. ASAP. |
| Posted by:Grinesh Omairt2166 |
| #17 "JUST. PLAIN. STUPID." It is Pelousy, cp. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2011-04-29 20:44 |
| #16 Well when you consider that to the ex-Queen Nancy and her gang *all* the profits properly belongs to the government and they are just being generous in even providing the incentive and allowing (hence the 'subsidies') the oil companies to keep even that much of their profits. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-04-29 19:54 |
| #15 Y'all are forgetting state and city taxes as well as Federal |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2011-04-29 19:17 |
| #14 Well, fortunately we have the media to explain these things to us. Thanks for doing their job, OP! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-04-29 19:14 |
| #13 The Feds don't subsidize oil. What they do is provide a few incentives to companies to drill. One of them is the Oil Depletion Allowance, which allows oil companies to deduct from profits, because extracting oil means there's less of it in the ground (the "depletion"). Since it costs money to do the surveys to find the oil, to drill to extract it, and then a constant cost to maintain the well AND the reservoir, the companies can deduct the costs from profits, based on a sliding scale. The mineral depletion allowance in one form or another exists in all mineral extraction industries. The environmental protection |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2011-04-29 18:35 |
| #12 Yes, but more passes thru the Federal till this way. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-04-29 16:27 |
| #11 >But then, it's all a scam anyway, isn't it? YES. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2011-04-29 16:17 |
| #10 Depreciation? Not really. Not me. I just don't understand because it sounds like the government is giving them money with one hand and then taking it away with another hand. Wouldn't it make more sense to subsidize less but then tax less as well? Wouldn't it save a lot of accountants a lot of time? But then, it's all a scam anyway, isn't it? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-04-29 15:57 |
| #9 Wait a minute. First we subsidize them and then we tax them? Do I understand that correctly? Somebody help me here. How does that make sense? Have you ever claimed depreciation on anything? If so, congratulations, the rest of us subsidized your lazy selfish ass. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2011-04-29 14:45 |
| #8 Wait a minute. First we subsidize them and then we tax them? Do I understand that correctly? Somebody help me here. How does that make sense? |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-04-29 13:33 |
| #7 The federal leviathan really does need a PURGE. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-04-29 13:09 |
| #6 the U.S. ought to be investing in clean energy I assume she's referring to carbon-neutral Botox production. |
| Posted by: Matt 2011-04-29 12:46 |
| #5 The oil companies don't set the price of oil. But you have a government that is driving prices up by stopping operations in the Gulf of Mexico and shutting off oil from Libya causing prices to rise and then they complain that because a barrel of crude goes up in price the oil companies make more money? Look, the oil company DOESN'T SET THE PRICE. I wish these libtards would get that through their heads. The buyers set the price. The price is what amounts to an auction. There is nothing Exxon can do about the price of oil short of bringing more to market ... which this government actively blocks. It is JUST. PLAIN. STUPID. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2011-04-29 12:16 |
| #4 I openly admit I'm a complete dolt when it comes to macro economics. But something isn't making sense here. The immediate problem is I'm getting squeezed at the pump. But (As I understand it.) the fundemental problem is that high energy prices stunt economic growth. The rationale behind subsidies to the industries that produce commodities is to balance their production costs. And, in turn, those reduced costs make their product more affordable to the consumer and ultimately spur economic growth. So how does squeezing the tit of Big Oil make it less painful when I fill up my gas tank? I dunno, I'm beginning to think Obama and Pelosi are just playing games. But hey...if it works I say go after Big Sugar and Big Corn next. Have you seen the price liquor lately? |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2011-04-29 11:17 |
| #3 Just remember, before it gets to the bottom line, the Feds take half. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2011-04-29 06:59 |
| #2 Isn't "pounce" a brand of cat food? |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2011-04-29 06:48 |
| #1 I thought that total taxes on each gallon of gas was on the order of 20%, which would make it about 80 cents/gallon. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-04-29 05:08 |