Nancy Pelosi’s website is trumpeting her opinion that US taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize Big Oil because they’re making record profits.

Fair enough… provided that Republicans insist on the exact same thing when it comes to ending Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer subsidies because of their record profits.

Any takers on the Hill?

Comments

13 Responses to “A Suggestion for John Boehner in Dealing with Nancy Pelosi’s Call to End Taxpayer Subsidies to Big Oil”

  1. OK_Loyalist on April 29th, 2011 1:40 am

    How about when GE pays the same percentage that Joe 6 Pack pays?

  2. SignPainterGuy on April 29th, 2011 1:42 am

    Excellent idea, Doug ! PP received near record personal donations when it looked like they might lose fed. subsidies.

    If we can get the Rs to force the EPA and other greenie orgs to remove a ton of oppressive regs on oil co`s, they can well afford to pay for their own exploration and bringing oil / gas to market and bring down the price at the pump at the same time. I can see that as sustainable too !

    I doubt PP could be sustainable though, the lib / progs would soon tire of financing their own favorite programs themselves. OPM is supposed to cover those…..it`s tradition, right ?

  3. Clu Seatoe on April 29th, 2011 12:16 pm

    I might even be amenable to instead of ending subsidies to big oil, changing the subsidies to non-negotiable low interest loans that would include profit sharing.

    The exploration and the procedures of getting the oil out of the ground and then turning it to fuel is expensive but they shouldn’t get free help from the government.

  4. Clu Seatoe on April 29th, 2011 12:19 pm

    Abortion has nothing to do with women’s health when well over 90% of the women admit they did it for convenience sake.

  5. Joe Redfield on April 29th, 2011 12:49 pm

    While we're at it, why not prohibit public employee pension funds from owning stock in those obscenely profitable oil companies?

  6. TheLiberalMedia on April 29th, 2011 1:58 pm

    The irrational hatred of Planned Parenthood is just another ideological loser for the right.

    Planned Parenthood provides medical services for poor women. Big Oil rapes and exploits America's poor for profit.

    Big difference. If Exxon were providing mammograms for poor women maybe things would be different.

    Sorry, I know how you hate reality, but I had to mention it.

  7. SignPainterGuy on April 29th, 2011 2:24 pm

    TheLiberalMedia wouldn`t recognize reality if it appeared on Dancing With the Stars or The Biggest Loser ! So why bother explaining our hatred of government subsidized murder ?

  8. TheLiberalMedia on April 29th, 2011 2:40 pm

    Planned Parenthood does provide abortion services, but that is a small portion of what they do. The abortions they do provide are legal, just for the record. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean the government can't subsidize it. If you want to argue Planned Parenthood doesn't NEED subsidies, you may or may not have a point, but that hasn't been the argument.

    Republican's are trying to jam their ideology down the throats of the American people YET AGAIN.

    Big Oil does not need government subsidies. No one can argue that.

  9. Doug on April 29th, 2011 2:42 pm

    Maybe if Big Oil told TLM they were drilling because they're convinced there's an abortion clinic down there he'd be on board.

  10. Doug on April 29th, 2011 3:35 pm

    Just for the record, what the oil companies do is legal too.

    Anybody who can call ending the lives of over 300,000 babies per year a "small portion of what they do" is colder than Hillary's side of the bed. By the way, the majority of those are minorities — something you'd be pointing out if Bush was all for it.

  11. TheLiberalMedia on April 29th, 2011 5:38 pm

    Do either of the statements above actually mean anything? Why would I want to drill for an abortion clinic? I wouldn't recognize reality if it appeared on a TV show? What?

  12. Granny55 on April 29th, 2011 6:39 pm

    TLM I have a question for you? Pregnant woman goes into an abortion clinic with her 1 yr. old and 2 yr. old in tow and wants an abortion because with two small children already – a third would be "too" much for her. How about the doctor at PP just killing one of two she has in tow? That would take care of her "problem" just as easy as killing the unborn one would it not?

  13. swede on April 29th, 2011 10:28 pm

    "abrotion rights"

    Shlep. Abortion is not a right – it is obscene and evil. The framers of the constitution never imagined the concept of infanticide being construed as a constitutional right. A fetus is a human being endowed by his/her creator with the right to life. You and I and every human on the planet started life as a single cell zygote with a unique DNA signature.

    FYI, your relating infanticide to campaign finance and oil company profits is typical liberal equivalence. It's absurd. Consider a lobotomy. The meds are not working.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.