State Of The Union – Subsidizing Oil

30 Jan

During President Obama’s State of the Union Address on Tuesday, he included this throw-away populist line, “We need to get behind this innovation.  And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies.  (Applause.)  I don’t know if — I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own.  (Laughter.)  So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.

And with that, Obama promises to continue his policy of ending U.S. Oil Production and going full tilt into Windmills, Solar Panels, Bio-Fuels, and other stuff that won’t work for now.  Then, he hopped on Air Force One (fueled by fossil fuels) and flew to the heartland to sell his policies at the latest recipient of government largesse.

Shortly after the speech, I opened up a Twitter Feed of the hast-tag  #SotU, so I could capture an idea of what the folks were saying about the speech.  One particular tweet caught my eye and is the subject of this post.  Others showed the hateful rhetoric that has been demonized over the last week (mostly from the left) and the line of the week “starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love.”

Apparently folks on the left are required to re-tweet ad infinitum anything from Jon Stewart as well.

But, the Re-Tweeting of the “So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s” stuck in my craw.  Obama had two years of filibuster-proof majority to do anything he wanted to do with Congress.  Most Democrats are in favor of ending said Oil Subsidies.  So, I had to ask:

“Why didn’t BHO/Dems stop Oil subsidies over last 2 years?!?! Filibuster-proof majority; Repubs couldn’t stop them.”

And ask them I did.  Every time I saw the BHO line quoted, I asked the question back.  And here are the brilliant replies that I received:

From @zbhoy:

  • Who knows? I think both Democrats and Republicans make terrible choices. But who else do we have?
  • I am always optimistic. I want the future to be here now.

From @SharonRose13:

  • I am sure that requires a vote, just like all other good things that need to be done but lobbyists money & greedy agendas stop.

From @emjsays:

  • government is always reactive, not proactive.

Huh, what’s that got to do with BHO / Dems keeping the oil subsidies over the past two years

From @malikjp:

  • unfortunately dems and repubs are bought and sold by the #oil lobby, and every other lobby for that matter

From @JeremiahFelt:

  • What?

Brilliant reply there Jeremiah.  Maybe you ought to know what you’re tweeting about.

From @josefaller:

  • exactly. They had time to make changes, but only wanted to push an agenda.

From @tastethelink:

  • probably because they were focused on the economy and healthcare. Why didn’t bush stop them in the previous 8 years?

Ahh, the first to blame bush.  Nice work there.  I had to jump in and discuss with Mr. @tastethelink.  Turns out he has Post-Traumatic-Bush-Derangement-Syndrome.  The remainder of our discussion follows:

  • @tastethelink:  you’ve got to be kidding: you’re going to blame obama for something bush had 8 years to do.
  • Me:  I see you have Bush derangement syndrome. Bush never called for end. BHO did and could have but is playing you for a fool.
  • @tastethelink:  ahhhh, so bush is excused because he was ok with it. Now I see your level of intelligence.
  • Me:  And Barack is excused because you hate Bush. Brilliant.
  • @tastethelink:  he’s excused because he’s still got plenty of time. Bush had eight years and raped america.
  • Me:  Guess Obama’s Big Oil donors and the $400,000+ he took in 2008 had nothing to do w/ him continuing to subsidize oil for 2yrs
  • @tastethelink:  proof or it didn’t happen.
  • @tastethelink:  and yet again you’re excusing bush.
  • Me: Guess you’re excusing Carter and Clinton and Kennedy & BHO. Jeez dude. BHO called for it but didn’t do it. Get w/the present.
  • Me: Look for the part under “In Big Oil’s Pocket” (link)
  • @tastethelink:  ahhhh. You’re from missouri. That’s why.

Wow, I hope the gentleman gets some serious help soon.  Mr. @tastethelinke, OBAMA IS PRESIDENT NOW AND HAD TWO YEARS TO END OIL SUBSIDIES IF HE WANTED TOO.  I’m sure it has nothing to do w/ the $400,000+ Obama took from Big Oil during the 2008 campaign.

And, onward…

From @alexbthegirl:

  • Good point!

From @lejla_h:

  • Republicans tend to have way too many earmarks and riders.

I have absolutely no idea what that means

From @MsVeronicaJay:

  • Do you really believe the Republicans have a monopoly on that?
  • Consider this: US warships protect oil tankers – do you think that’s free?

If you know what that means, please let me know.

From @nickmccart:

  • I didn’t say they shouldn’t …. It wasn’t filibuster proof btw

Umm, Nick, ask someone, read, it WAS filibuster-proof!

From @apexnerd:

  • Good question. I don’t know.

From @ClintCGoodrich:

  • Excellent point Brian!

From @jeffwiedner:

  • it certainly would have been a helluva lot easier. IMO, lack of political will & scattered focus

From @JScullyClemmons:

B/c they lacked the courage of their convictions, as most politicians do.

From @Sar87K:

  • the issue is complicated.Oil provides a lot of money and while there, will be a priority for all governments

Again.  Huh?!?

So, as I continue my discussion with @tastethelink, I’m somewhat reassured that not all that tweeted Obama’s populist line are fomenting leftists.  Many replied with interesting and correct responses.  Some replied with, um, words.  Words that meant absolutely nothing to me.

The other 99% didn’t want to play.


Posted by on January 30, 2011 in Obama


Tags: ,

2 responses to “State Of The Union – Subsidizing Oil

  1. Travis

    March 14, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    I guess economy and health care were more pressing issues at the time, it wasn’t as though Obama was just to busy playing golf to get around to doing it, but there should be no reason he can’t get to it now, unless being a “Republican” is a valid excuse to subsidize oil.

    As far as campaign donations goes, big companies donate to both parties at the same time in hopes to cash in the “favor card” in the future.

    I do understand the backlash of Republicans on the internet trying to get revenge for the rabid lies, spins, and and harsh truths about Bush that circulated on the internet, this insinuation that Obama is in big oils pocket to incite suspicion, and ultimately character assassination is to be expected.

    We are at peak oil, and the more our economy improves, the more people use oil, the higher price of oil becomes, the more strain on our economy, it will keep yo-yoing until we can get ween off of our current rate of oil consumption.

    I don’t see this as a partisan issue.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: