The hypocrisy of the US Republican Party

A party that is supposed to be totally committed to capitalism and small government (i.e., cut the deficit) refuses to end US$21bn subsidy to big oil companies.

The Democrats apparently wanted to use the extra revenue to clean energy projects, but thought they would be more likely to get the policy through if they used it to cut the deficit instead. Despite this concession, they may still fall short of the votes needed to prevent a filibuster.

Dont you fall into that progressive trap Skandar. Progressives are just another name for those commie pinko fags they have been around for a long time. FDR's vp Wallas was a progressive. Thank God FDR chose Truman before he passed away.

Brad DeLong has a running series called "Why Friends Really Don't Let Friends Support the Republican Party". Good watch, fun read.

I always saw the Republican Party as being more or less committed to the creation of a Christian theocracy.

@Scarlet: that's pretty much the view from Europe.

I second Skandars observation.

More like they're trying to create an aristocracy where only Christians can get rich. Alterd, you're an intolerant bastard. I am a progressive and proud of it, and I'm nowhere near a communist. And I'm not gay, either, so you can just go f**k yourself. Anyway, I live in the state of Wisconsin, you might have heard something about the budget bill conflict. Ironically, Governor Doucheb- I'm sorry, I mean Walker- turned down $2B in federal money for a high-speed rail, then turns around and starts complaining about a lack of money. My mom works for the UW-Madison, and if it weren't for my dad, we wouldn't even be making enough to support us. In conclusion, Republicans, and Alterd, are almost all jackasses.

Aren't you a pleasant little munchkin, Billy Bob.

@Alterd.

To defend your position, you would have to convince me that the tax breaks given to Big Oil companies are necessary for their continued survival to help provide employment to hard-working Americans.

Sadly, US$21bn is a drop in the ocean compared to the profits of ExxonMobil ($30bn in 2010), Royal Dutch Shell ($20bn in 2010) and Total ($20bn in 2010). Surely, you cannot believe that these companies cannot absorb their share of an extra $21bn in tax?

@Laguna: Only if by "little munchkin" you really mean "5' 9" jackass".

Double-Bob you never cease to amaze me.

Really? I'd have thought you'd be used to it by now.

chill out dudes. Religion and politics should never be discussed among friends; and we're all friends here, right?

Haha.
Listening to that, don't you find the advice a little silly considering how the common thread between religion and politics is that they are based upon each person's value system (meaning these are strongly tied to what each person finds most important in life)?

Exactly. I dare you to name seven famous republicans who are atheists.

It's also funny how religion and politics are meant to quiet the masses into humble subservience and put a soft velvet veil over the public's eyes. That's why I don't like it when people stop being friends over crap that really doesn't matter in light of how royally screwed we really will be when the eventuality of resource scarcity will start nuclear wars.

good point Russianator.

Double-Bob... nvm.

@ Psycho: what do u mean, nvm? nvm what?
@ Russian: it's not so much humble subservience and a soft velvet veil, it's a little bit closer to chaining the masses upside down in a dungeon three miles below the surface of the earth and then ripping their eyeballs out.

Agree with original post.
@BillyBob, you can't name seven famous democrat atheists.
@Russ, religion can't be meant to quiet the masses as it is the source of all violence and suffering in the world
@LG egads

@ jojo
i would argue religion is not the source, but a convenient excuse. it usually comes down to money and/or natural resources. religion is used as a veil to fool the masses to believe that what they are doing is righteous.

Big oil - Perhaps the subsidy should be restructured. Some type of sliding formula based on profits earned in the United States...but

Question:
If we remove the subsidy, will these multi-national oil companies stop their investments in the United States? Investments that could turn into future job growth in the United States and billions in future tax revenues for the United States and local government.

Cut the subsidy and perhaps they invest in Nigeria, Saudi Arabian or other oil fields instead.

Hey we saved billions today.

Hey, I just talked myself out of the subsidy cuts.

These subsidy should not be looked at as a subsidy but instead as a partnership contribution. A partnership between the United States government and big oil corporations. The government will recover their investment with future tax dollars on oil sales.

What tax dollars? The only reason that the republicans tax corporations and the rich at all is that the need to make it look like they're almost being fair. So the choices are sell out with subsidies and get nothing, or not sell out and still get nothing.

What tax dollars? The tax on petrol (gas) is supposed to go into maintaining & developing infrastructure, the idea being that the national road network (freeways?, or are they highways in the states?) should pay for itself (more ideological support for the free market). Unfortunately the federal government has had to pump in additional billions just to maintain the network in its current poor state of repair.

Give me sensible European petrol prices, and well managed infrastructure investment any day.

We call 'em highways and interstates over here, and even if the government wanted to spend them on infrastructure improvements (instead of corporate handouts to companies like AIG), they couldn't, because the republicans have made sure that there ARE no tax dollars coming in. Like I said, they just take the four or five dollars that are coming in a month, funnel them into massive corporations that they own, and use that extra cash to give large bonuses to the executives (themselves). I'm guessing you live in England?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

These subsidy should not be looked at as a subsidy but instead as a partnership contribution. A partnership between the United States government and big oil corporations. The government will recover their investment with future tax dollars on oil sales. <!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power" - Benito Mussolini<!-/Quote-!>

On that note, the solution to the problem of subsidies and such is to eliminate government involvement in the economy entirely. Then unscrupulous corporation executives can't fleece taxpayers because there is no avenue for using the government as a subsidizer. Only the scrupulous corporations will survive. The roads will go wherever the people need it. Where there is a demand for transportation, y