Sun, Mar 1, 2015, 8:15 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Westport Innovations Inc. Message Board

  • flashopportunity flashopportunity Mar 8, 2012 3:32 PM Flag

    So Obama Likes Nat Gas Vehicles, but not Nat Gas Production?

    Here it comes again: Obama is once again looking to raise the production costs of both oil AND NATURAL GAS. From Politico coverage today "Obama also called on Congress to eliminate tax incentives for oil and natural gas." These tax incentives are the same tax incentives that every domestic manufacturer in the United States gets, IRS section 199. If Obama removes them from the oil and gas industry, but leaves them for every other domestic manufacturer industry, this will be a targeted tax hike on a specific industry, not the removal of a subsidy.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73740.html

    http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/a/domesticproduct.htm

    Moreover, if Obama is serious about bringing down oil and gas prices, why is he trying to put at targeted tax hike on oil and gas production? Why has leasing and permitting on Federal lands and water fallen by almost 50% under Obama? Yes I know our oil and gas production is up, but that is because of production on state and private lands and production rights granted under previous administrations.

    Here is why: When Obama was running for President, Obama said under his plan of cap and trade, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket". Energy Secretary Chu said in 2008 that he wanted to see USA gasoline prices double to those of Europe, about $8 per gallon.

    Don't be fooled by Obama's newfound, election jump on the bandwagon praise for natural gas vehicles. Obama, Chu, Salazar and Sheila Jackson will all go after its production (fracking) and penalize its use for being a greenhouse gas polluter again if they are given a second term. They already did it once when they passed the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, HR 2454, in the Pelosi led house in 2009. Fortunately it did not pass in the Senate. Moreover, subsidies for nat gas for transportation will just give Obama and Chu cover to continue to run their green energy slush fund for political supporters, such as forcing the Navy to buy algae biomass fuel from Solazyme at a cost of $16/gallon.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Fossil fuels (Gas, oil, coal) account for 15% of all Energy related tax preferences last year, or $2.5 billion.

      Renewable energies accounted for 68% of all energy related tax preferences, or $11.3 Billion.

      Mean while, we are still paying $6.1 Billion in Alcohol related fuel subsidies IE ethanal. Which just makes our car gas more expensive anyways due to the federal requirements demanding it be there in gas.

      Why cant we get rid of all these loop-holes and just reduce everyones tax burden. Net effect 0, and no preferential treatment except to technologies that are working

    • HAIL THE ALMIGHTY HUSSIEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      HOOOPE & YOURRRRRRR CHCHCHAAAAAAAANNNNNGGGGEEEEE!!!!!!!

    • Left a finishing sentence out of a paragraph:

      <<Here is why: When Obama was running for President, Obama said under his plan of cap and trade, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket". Energy Secretary Chu said in 2008 that he wanted to see USA "gasoline prices go to those of Europe", about $8 per gallon. THEY BOTH WANT TO FORCE THE PRICE UP OF ALL FOSSIL FUELS TO MAKE NON FOSSIL FUEL, GREEN ENERGY MORE ECONOMICAL.>>

 
WPRT
5.51+0.07(+1.29%)Feb 27 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.