OBAMA TO CONGRESS: FUCK YOU ON KEYSTONE COMPROMISE...

Maybe he's not a pathological liar, but instead a truly confused person who just can't manage the thought process.

you know ...

a MORON!!!!

Keystone XL, like all oil industry projects, is enabled by substantial taxpayer subsidies. Three of the refineries that are planning to process the pipeline’s oil have invested in special equipment to handle the extra heavy tar sands oil. According to our conservative estimates, the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing these investments to the tune of $1.0-1.8 billion.http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/key...yer-subsidies/ Originally Posted by WTF

There are no subsidies. The article is bullshit. Do you know anything about financial accounting, fagboy? The refineries use accelerated depreciation on their capital investments. That means they can write them off faster for tax purposes. It affects the timing of taxes, not the amount. It happens in all kinds of industries and it's not a subsidy. A subsidy is a PERMANENT tax reduction or cash payout - like cash for clunkers, or putting solar panels on your roof, i.e. when you get an immediate tax break (or cash rebate) and you don't have to pay it back later.

Libtards want to distort what is going on by saying taxpayers are "subsidizing" something they don't like - when in reality all we are talking about is the use of a tax depreciation method that has been around in various forms for decades. Why doesn't your libtard author do something useful like estimate how many new jobs will be created by the $10.8 billion that the four refineries are spending for new capital equipment? I am sure those jobs are being left out of the biased studies put together by your environmental fascist buddies on Keystone XL's economic impact.

.

Maybe I'm not a pathological liar, but instead a truly confused person who just can't manage the thought process.

you know ...

I'm a MORON!!!! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That was too easy! But now it's the truth.

While I agree that it going to market will not spike oil prices....The oil is going to market whether we process it or it is processed somewhere else so your argument is bogus that we need it to lower prices.
. Originally Posted by WTF

You moron, the pipeline will help bring the oil to market faster and sooner. Faster and sooner means lower prices than slower and later. And why should we let someone else process and refine the oil if we can put people to work doing it here and then export a much higher-value product?

The economic benefits (for employment, GNP growth, trade balance, energy prices, etc.) are so obvious that anyone who tries to argue otherwise just winds up looking colosally stupid.

I guess everyone missed the part about the Canadian oil people not needing the pipeline anymore. It's obsolete! They turned on another pipeline way back in January that does Most of what they needed plus the rail is now able to transport 10 times more oil than before. Canada had already said they will not use it if built but hey let's build out even if it goes unused. Originally Posted by BigLouie

You're right BL, everyone missed this. Where's the link?

.

Idiot. Those are subsidies for refineries. Keystone is a pipeline project. It isn't getting any
targeted government subsidies.

America needs newer refineries. The few we have are antiquated and over capacity.

Keystone XL, like all oil industry projects, is enabled by substantial taxpayer subsidies. Three of the refineries that are planning to process the pipeline’s oil have invested in special equipment to handle the extra heavy tar sands oil. According to our conservative estimates, the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing these investments to the tune of $1.0-1.8 billion.http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/key...yer-subsidies/ Originally Posted by WTF

I recall when Nixon "impounded" Federal funding for public schools (and other Federally funded projects) ....

....now I will be able to remember when Congress "impounded" some of the President's "pet projects."

"The Golden Rule": Whoever has the Gold rules....

In this case the "purse strings"!

I hope Michelle is ready to get in her own "purse" for the "pet projects"!

I recall when Nixon "impounded" Federal funding for public schools (and other Federally funded projects) ....

....now I will be able to remember when Congress "impounded" some of the President's "pet projects."

"The Golden Rule": Whoever has the Gold rules....

In this case the "purse strings"!

I hope Michelle is ready to get in her own "purse" for the "pet projects"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

That is some first class blithering, I tell you what!

Make sense in any sentence and you get a pass on this one. But noooooo!

There are no subsidies. The article is bullshit. Do you know anything about financial accounting, fagboy? The refineries use accelerated depreciation on their capital investments. That means they can write them off faster for tax purposes.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

It means you get your investment back faster than other business do. That is a subsidy.

Idiot. Those are subsidies for refineries. Keystone is a pipeline project. It isn't getting any
targeted government subsidies.

. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No it gets eminent domain to take the land it wants. Now you're pro New London?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon...tone-pipeline/

America needs newer refineries. The few we have are antiquated and over capacity. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

We need electric cars and batteries too, are you for those government subsidies? You sure seem to pick and choose which one's you are for and against.

But that isn't what you posted twice...You claimed the federal government subsidies were in the billions for refineries.....not eminent domain purchases. And land purchases for right of way are at the cost of the pipeline owner - TransCanada. Where is the government subsidy ?????

No it gets eminent domain to take the land it wants. Now you're pro New London?

Originally Posted by WTF

That was too easy! But now it's the truth.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You shore fixed another one of them there, didn't ye, Whiny!

OUCH!

But that isn't what you posted twice...You claimed the federal government subsidies were in the billions for refineries.....not eminent domain purchases. And land purchases for right of way are at the cost of the pipeline owner - TransCanada. Where is the government subsidy ????? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Without the refineries refining the product....there would be no pipeline.

So you do understand how the refinery subsidy has a direct effect on Keystone and it's cost effectiveness.

. And land purchases for right of way are at the cost of the pipeline owner - TransCanada. Where is the government subsidy ????? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Either make a deal or we use eminent domain...which has been used 2% of the time btw.

You do understand that because of this Nebraska Judges ruling that landowners in Nebraska have received quite a bit more than say landowners in Texas. That is a powerful tool to have as a company in talks with landowners....a government subsidy if you will.

Should the government use eminent domain to take land for Wind Turbines?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/02/24/foreign-company-tries-to-seize-u-s-land-for-keystone-pipeline/

It means you get your investment back faster than other business do. That is a subsidy.
Originally Posted by WTF

Accelerated depreciation results in a timing difference, not a subsidy. The government collects the same amount in taxes; they're just back-loaded over the life of the equipment. Accounting 101. And it's not just for Canadian oil; it applies to ANY capital spending to expand ANY refinery.

You do understand that because of this Nebraska Judges ruling that landowners in Nebraska have received quite a bit more than say landowners in Texas. That is a powerful tool to have as a company in talks with landowners....a government subsidy if you will. Originally Posted by WTF

Now you call it a "subsidy" when some landowners sue and collect more than others? Where do you come up with this shit? A subsidy REDUCES the cost of a project. Lawsuits raise it. As a rule, anytime fagboy begins a sentence with "you do understand that..." - you can be sure what follows will be complete nonsense!

.

You are just a dumbshit....

First, the subsidies for the refineries superseded the Keystone project. New refineries are needed to replace our older ageing refineries and to increase refining capacity. They are necessary for the well being of our economy.

Under your logic, these new refineries are also a subsidy to Ford, GMC, FedEx, UPS, and every other company that needs refined petroleum - so your point is pointless.

Secondly, Keystone oil is economically feasible with or without it being refined on the Gulf Coast. Without the US refineries; Keystone would still need to be piped for export to world markets.

Keep swinging away, you might make contact in a post.

Without the refineries refining the product....there would be no pipeline. HAHAHAHA...YOU GOT ANY PROOF FOR THIS STUPIDITY ?? OR ARE YOU NOW ARGUING SOMETHING COMPLETELY IDIOTIC, LIKE WE SHOULD CLOSE ALL REFINERIES TO END WORLD DEPENDENCE ON FOSSIL FUEL???? GEEEZ, YOU CHANGE YOUR LOGIC TO ARGUMENTS LIKE WEATHER CHANGES - CONSTANTLY.!

So you do understand how the refinery subsidy has a direct effect on Keystone and it's cost effectiveness.



Either make a deal or we use eminent domain...which has been used 2% of the time btw.

You do understand that because of this Nebraska Judges ruling that landowners in Nebraska have received quite a bit more than say landowners in Texas. That is a powerful tool to have as a company in talks with landowners....a government subsidy if you will.

Should the government use eminent domain to take land for Wind Turbines?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/02/24/foreign-company-tries-to-seize-u-s-land-for-keystone-pipeline/ Originally Posted by WTF

Accelerated depreciation results in a timing difference, not a subsidy. The government collects the same amount in taxes; they're just back-loaded over the life of the equipment. Accounting 101.
Originally Posted by lustylad

You do understand that time is money. Which is more valuable 10 million dollars today or 10 million dollars 20 years from now?

If your dumbass won say a 10 million dollar lottery. And the lottery gave you a choice of it being paid all up front or out over 20 years with no discount for you taking the 10 million up front , which would your dumbass take? Because according to you they are both worth the exact same amount and one is no different than the other.