[Oeva-list] Not all Congressmen have wooden heads

Greg Long greglongoregon at gmail.com
Sun Apr 1 00:18:10 PDT 2012


I gotta agree with Lawrence on one point in particular... getting news
from "Fox and Friends" is pretty moronic. ;)   (I'm being silly here,
I lend only limited trust to far left media either, including that
which I posted earlier).

I'll read up more on the bill in a coupla days, and see how much sense
I can make of it with my non-existent legal and tax accounting
education. I have an important conference call Monday morning I've got
to prepare for, and the bill is obviously not pressing if it failed.

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Craig Schaefer <calvinjean2 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Don't get your panties in a wad.  No one said all expenses were deductible,
> the petro producers have some, banks have some, it's in the tax code.
> Change it if you can.   It won't affect most people as I think we've said
> that the all breaks equate to about 20 cents/gallon or less.   Unless the
> petro companies decide to raise their prices to make up the difference in
> the removed tax incentives.   Like I said, 6-8% profit isn't exactly
> stealing.
> As for Merkley's rant, er, bill.   Fantasy and science should be in separate
> realms unless you're reading paperbacks.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lawrence Winiarski
> To: OEVA
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 1:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Not all Congressmen have wooden heads
>
> Not every expense is deductible.   It's never been that way for any
> business....ever.     Trying to make this
> about the oil companies not being allowed to deduct "expenses" when other
> companies can is completely moronic.
> Virtually every company has things they can deduct and things they can't.
> There are also limits to the deductions.
> and rates of depreciation.  The oil businesses have several special classes
> of deductions that only affect them.
>
>  Has anyone even actually "read" the bill?    It's not even that long.  Most
> of the damn bill isn't even about the oil companies, but is about ADDING or
> continuing subsidies for OTHER industries.   The stuff about the oil
> companies is pretty much specific deductions like "continuing the deduction
> to tertiary injectants"
>
> I don't know how I feel about the bill, but it would be nice to have a
> discussion about whats really in the bill
> as opposed to morons talking about what they "think" the bill is about
> because of what they heard on
> "Fox and Friends" about socialism....and then going into la-la land about
> how much money the oil companies made
> in some random year in the past.
>
>  As an effort to improving the quality of discussion,  I'll give brownie
> points for anyone who can tell me the
> title of sec. 211 and what it is about.....
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If we don't halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be
> done for us by nature, brutally and without pity - and will leave a ravaged
> world.
> Nobel Laureate Dr. Henry W. Kendall 023934
> ________________________________
> From: Greg Long <greglongoregon at gmail.com>
> To: Alan Batie <alan at batie.org>
> Cc: OEVA <oeva-list at oeva.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 12:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] Not all Congressmen have wooden heads
>
> Ahh.. I'll concede, I see your point, I'm clearly not a tax expert or
> politician or lawyer... I just thought it a valid topic for discussion
> if you guys like to do that as part of the group.
>
> Perhaps it's better to consider the hidden costs and risks issue in
> more depth and how to best either avoid them or associate them more
> directly with producers and consumers of petroleum. I'm not suggesting
> a socialistic move of energy production to the public sector, that
> would almost surely create as many or more problems than it would
> solve, just that there's a high cost of maintaining our present
> course.
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Alan Batie <alan at batie.org> wrote:
>> On 3/30/12 8:34 PM, Craig Schaefer wrote:
>>> It's not irrelevant.   We are not paying money to 'big oil'.   We are
>>> allowing them to deduct expenses.
>>> These are different concepts.
>>
>> They are, and no one thinks they shouldn't be allowed to deduct expenses
>> just like any other business.  That's not what is meant by "subsidy"
>> though.  There's a list at greenpeace, which, them being them, counts a
>> lot of things I wouldn't count as "subsidy", but some are:
>>
>> http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/oil/fdsub.html
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oeva-list mailing list
>> Oeva-list at oeva.org
>> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oeva-list mailing list
> Oeva-list at oeva.org
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oeva-list mailing list
> Oeva-list at oeva.org
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oeva-list mailing list
> Oeva-list at oeva.org
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/oeva-list
>




More information about the Oeva-list mailing list