Obama proposes end to oil, gas industry tax breaks

[babylonsister]

:thumbsup:

Obama proposes end to oil, gas industry tax breaks


By H. JOSEF HEBERT,
Associated Press Writer
Thu May 7, 6:15 pm ET


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wants to end $26 billion in oil and gas industry tax breaks, calling them "unjustifiable loopholes" in the tax system that other companies do not get.

Obama's proposed fiscal 2010 budget, details of which were released Thursday, also more clearly spells out his intention to shut down a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and calls for ending a government subsidy that helps utilities license and plan for new nuclear power plants.

The oil and gas industry tax breaks have often been targeted by congressional Democrats in recent years, but they have not been able to muster enough votes to rescind them. Most Republicans and the Bush administration vigorously defended the tax benefits, saying they're needed to boost domestic oil and gas development.

In the budget statement, Obama said the tax breaks, which are expected to save the oil and gas industry more than $26 billion over the next 10 years, are "unjustifiable loopholes ... costly to the American taxpayer and do little to incentivize production or reduce energy prices."

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_budget_energy;_ylt=AtC85CT4hGh_Frc9ZHtZg.eyFz4D

[ellie]

1. WOO HOO!

:woohoo:

[ClarkUSA]

2. Another big promise he's trying to keep. Now Congress better back him up and vote right.

Guess he's not another Bush/Reagan/corporate tool after all... :eyes:

[Deja Q]

6. He's a President of the people.

And I won't deny corporations have a say too, but President Obama, I don't think, will give special privies to them anymore.

[ClarkUSA]

15. Well-said. That's obvious -- to all but the most biased of naysayers.

[Deja Q]

18. And it's to the biased naysayers we have to remind the most.

:)

[ClarkUSA]

19. Yes We Can

:fistbump:

[GreenTea]

3. Like everything else in the end it'll be watered down or won't get done...same old shit

Corporate republicans rule and get their way...money always wins out in the end.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

7. Why are you even here if you're bound and determined you'll

be disappointed? Why even pay attention? Seriously, what's the point?

[midnight armadillo]

22. I think you fail to see the point

Congress is completely, totally corrupted by the need for campaign contributions. Good luck to the President trying to clean this shit up, there's dozens in Congress who will do anything to keep their campaign coffers full by killing Obama's reforms.

[Deja Q]

5. Will Exxon have a tantrum and get out of the nonproliferation treaty too?

:evilgrin:

[DrToast]

8. What's wrong with nuclear power?

It's cheap, it's clean. What's wrong?

[Dawgs]

13. nuclear power is "clean"? Are you nuts.

Do you realize that nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere; FOREVER?

[DrToast]

14. So?

Are you going to go swimming in nuclear waste? Are you going to breathe it?

[Sirveri]

17. No form of power generation is 'clean'.

The differance with nuclear is that it was built to specifically contain the waste products instead of dumping them into the air (coal, oil, nat gas), or the water table (solar panel production), or being nicknamed bird blenders (wind). It also takes up less space than solar thermal or wind, can be put more places than geothermal, and doesn't leave waste products sitting around exposed to the elements like coal.

Also it doesn't have to be stored forever, the majority of the truly dangerous stuff dissipates to really low levels after aproximately 150-200 years. Plus with reclamation you can sift out the low level wastes leaving you with substantially less high level waste while giving additional (albeit absurdly expensive) fuel. The only thing I could see as a potential to match nuclear in terms of baseload power generation are solar thermal (which requires substantially more space and is still subject to seasonal production disruptions), microwave solar and either He3 or B11 fusion (neither of which have been developed or are anywhere near breakeven/production potential).

[TheWraith]

20. Do you know how much "waste" you're talking about?

30 tons per plant, per year, roughly. Compare that with THOUSANDS of tons produced by any coal plant--including radioactive isotopes like thorium and uranium, trapped inside the coal and released with the smoke and ash. A coal plant is allowed to release more radiation than a nuclear plant is.

Not to mention that reprocessing and recycling technologies greatly reduce the amount of actual waste product that needs to be stored.

[wroberts189]

21. Its the spent fuel...has to be kept in cool tanks and can be used to make nukes.

In addition the possibility of a meltdown which would be a total disaster.


See what Al Gore says about it for some further good points against it..

[islandgirl808]

9. interesting

the bfee will not like this :tinfoilhat:

[Joanne98]

10. YAY!

[firedupdem]

11. Excellent! Keeping campaign promises! That's my President! n/t

[Hissyspit]

12. recommended nt

[Scurrilous]

16. K & R

:thumbsup: