Monday, December 19, 2005

Who should profit from our oil use?


And the hypocrisy continues as the Democrats threaten a filibuster on the defense spending bill that just passed in the house because it includes drilling for oil in ANWR. So the Republicans used the system to attach ANWR to defense spending so as to show opponents are soft on defense, good move! The Democrats are pissed off, once again being schooled by the Republicans. First, the arguments against drilling on ANWR's 1.5M acres are a joke. Modern drilling uses very little land and has very little effect on wildlife habitat especially considering how little space the facilities would take. But worse is the lefts complaint on our reliance on foreign oil. You have the possible minor disruption of caribou, polar bears, migratory birds and other wildlife over our dependence on middle east oil and Democrats choose the later? Explain that to me! They would rather us continue our dependence and force restrictions on SUV's. New Jersey's Sen. Frank Lautenberg said "This is a Christmas package designed for delivery to the oil industry, and we have got to fight as hard as we can to stop that delivery". SO WHAT...you would rather have the money go to the Saudi's, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, etc.? And if not, your concern over a few animals being disrupted in the boonies trumps your concern over 250M Americans? What the hell is wrong with US oil companies doing well? WHAT THE F!!!!! Ted Kennedy is all for wind power as long as you don't put the wind mill in his ocean view. Democrats think everything we do in the middle east is about oil and fail to embrace a head on approach to fix that. They would rather F*** the consumer, and business, instead of an animal. Putting ANWR on the bill is fair game, this is how the system works. We should have been drilling there 30 yrs ago. The Democrats take the PETA approach when it comes to our energy dependence and security...but they're patriots and support the troops! NOT

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lautenberg is useless. Check his poll ratings out . . . he's dead last among 100 Senators.

http://newjerseyblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/100-way-to-go-frank.html

MOV said...

What about those who argue that we could leave ANWR alone *and* reduce our reliance on foreign oil. What about focusing on developing more efficient technologies which could ultimately save us the (possibly) several billion barrels of oil we would have been able to suck out of ANWR? Maybe some tougher CAFE standards for starters? Oh wait, Bush would rather give business owners a tax break for buying Hummers ;)

Tiny said...

other energy sources and technologies are being developed...so what? Why leave ANWR alone? You don't tackle multi-decade problems with a single prong solution when you have more options. No, you jackass tax breaks are given to electric and hybrid owners...what's the point of the Bush comment? None, it's based on nothing...go away

MOV said...

You don't want me to go away. You need me.

And what's the point of the Bush comment? You tell me. I think it's relevant to the discussion that our government encourages certain types of behavior (purchasing gas guzzlers) and discourages others (increasing CAFE standards)

Tiny said...

The government is encouraging SUV purchases? How? By not penalizing the purchase of one? So is the government also encouraging the purchase of pornography since it doesn't tax that purchase? Ass!

MOV said...

By your logic, it sounds like the government is NOT encouraging homeownership by giving mortgage interest tax deductions and breaks on capital gains. If not to encourage homeownership, then what are those tax breaks for Tiny?

Tiny said...

You said the government encourages the purchase of gas guzzlers but your argument is they do so by not doing something to make purchasing one more difficult. Your logic flawed. Your logic says that everything the government doesn't discourage by a tax or standard it therefore encourages...if you don't understand this I can't help you. Yes the government encourages home ownership with a mortgage tax deduction, how does that relate to your gas guzzler or Hummer comment?

MOV said...

It's quite simple. If I purchase a more efficient sedan as my company car for X dollars, I get less of a tax break than if I purchase a less efficient SUV as my company car for the same X dollars. If this descrepancy is *not* a way for the government to encourage business owners to buy SUVs over sedans, then please explain why we have it!

Tiny said...

You're either a classic no-facts-in-hand liberal or you're just messing with me. The remibursement for business vehicle use is the same for every car/truck and is $0.485 per mile. If you had your own business or were important enough to use your vehicle for business you might know that.

MOV said...

no-facts-in-hand? haha.. Please.. Let me educate you. A loophole in the stimulus plan Bush signed in 2003 allowed for business vehicles over 6000 lbs (which includes SUVs like Hummers) allowed for the entire IRS section 179 deduction (for depreciation) to be taken in the year the vehicle was purchased, up to $102,000. Whereas with a business 'car' you only get to deduct a fraction of the price for depreciation. With a loophole big enough to drive Arnie's hummer through, Congress came to their senses and modified this "SUV deduction" to $25,000 in the first year (starting in 2005). But you still get to deduct the full cost over the life of the vehicle. But not if you drive a little sedan that weighs less than an earth shattering 3 tons. Still don't believe me Tiny? This is all on the IRS website. Here's where you can start:
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p946/ch06.html
But we both know you won't take the time to learn about this...

Tiny said...

mov, so you apparently think the 179 business property deduction is a loop hole for people who OWN a business to right off an SUV? Are you kidding me? This is too funny, you probably also believe most business owners would hire the best candidate because he/she is black right? And for your information the 179 deduction allows you take all the depreciation of a piece of property used 100% for business all in the year of purchase, but that means you don't get the yearly depreciation in the following years. The gross vehicle weight was apparently also raised to 14,000 lbs. which is exactly the kind of SUV I'm looking for by the way

MOV said...

Yeah, and when the 20 ton semi-truck you drive to Starbucks every morning squashes my little prius hybrid you'll probably laugh and keep on driving!

Tiny said...

No, I go to Pete's. And I'm sure I have run over more than one Prius without even noticing.