The president wants to end oil subsidies which total over four billion dollars a year.


History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by RichieLion

You're new phrase is totally wishful thinking. Was this an MSNBC talking point. Did Chris Matthews give his marching orders.

You're wrong on the proposed source of the money, as if giving oil companies the same tax deductions every other business gets is a crime. You've been making up a lot of stuff lately.

In the Bloomberg report is stated: "Democrats accused Republicans of what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called an “assault on women’s health” because the measure would eliminate the health fund, which has provided breast and cervical cancer screenings as well as child immunization and prenatal tests for birth defects and developmental disorders. They cited a USA Today/Gallup poll showing Romney trailing Obama among women voters by 18 percentage points."

I tried to give the link but copying the link and the paragraph did not work.

The only time I have watched MSNBC was during the last cruise I was on because MSNBC and Fox were the only news channels. It was at the time of the Zimmerman shooting of Martin and downright comical (or tragic) to hear such biased sides of the news on both ends of the spectrum. No middle ground at all.

Originally Posted by janmcn

The president wants to end oil subsidies which total over four billion dollars a year.


History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century - Yahoo! News

If the President is talking about oil subsidies and you are also, you're both lying. Oil companies are not "subsidized". It's political shorthand for dummies.

Oil, gas companies aren’t subsidized - NYPOST.com

Originally Posted by RichieLion

If the President is talking about oil subsidies and you are also, you're both lying. Oil companies are not "subsidized". It's political shorthand for dummies.

Oil, gas companies aren’t subsidized - NYPOST.com

The President must be confused. Here is a blog right from whitehouse.gov which discusses oil subsidies. I'm sure RichieLion knows more about this than the President and Congress.


Five Reasons to Repeal Subsidies for Oil Companies | The White House

well if it is from the WH what other authentication would or could anyone ever want?

btk

Originally Posted by janmcn

The President must be confused. Here is a blog right from whitehouse.gov which discusses oil subsidies. I'm sure RichieLion knows more about this than the President and Congress.


Five Reasons to Repeal Subsidies for Oil Companies | The White House

Originally Posted by billethkid

well if it is from the WH what other authentication would or could anyone ever want?

btk

Exactly BTK. The President never stretches the truth. The truth is that you, Jan, have not even read the article I linked and so you're still among the clueless. You are a propaganda victim and I don't have pity for you because it's your choice.

Isn't it just amazing that RichieLion and BTK are right on government policy and the White House official blog is incorrect on government policy?

We ought to vote the both of them to public office.

propaganda and clueless? sounds a lot like the republicaan party to me or at least some of our posters.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Isn't it just amazing that RichieLion and BTK are right on government policy and the White House official blog is incorrect on government policy?

We ought to vote the both of them to public office.

It took forever, it seems, but you're finally catching on.

Why would the White House lie in pursuit of their political agenda? It's a mystery, isn't it?

Thanks for finally seeing the wisdom I'm imparting. I can really help you back to the light if you remain motivated. We'll talk about it.

Am I the only one noticing the hidden issue?

It's not about loan interest rates versus women's health funding (though people can probably predict my opinion on that).

Why is this an issue in the first place?

I have an idea. It's because every time that government (federal and state) has thrown money at universities to make college more affordable, they've taken that money and thrown it at tenured professors and regents with an 'edifice complex'. Costs for a colelge education, like health care, have FAR outstripped inflation. And from what my daughter told me, the professors work less and less - frequently recycling the same material so they're not working much in between years either.

Originally Posted by djplong

Am I the only one noticing the hidden issue?

It's not about loan interest rates versus women's health funding (though people can probably predict my opinion on that).

Why is this an issue in the first place?

I have an idea. It's because every time that government (federal and state) has thrown money at universities to make college more affordable, they've taken that money and thrown it at tenured professors and regents with an 'edifice complex'. Costs for a colelge education, like health care, have FAR outstripped inflation. And from what my daughter told me, the professors work less and less - frequently recycling the same material so they're not working much in between years either.

Not only thrown money at the tenured professors (whose salaries I have absolutely no idea of) but how about at the athletic coaches? I read recently that Urban Meyer - after taking a year off from U of Florida - is now Ohio State head coach at $4 million per year plus bonuses. No tenured professor is making that kind of money. The $4 million comes from the money brought in by sports for a part but I am sure also from tuition increases.