What the 2012 election taught us

What the 2012 election taught us

There are 10313 comments on the The Washington Post story from Nov 6, 2012, titled What the 2012 election taught us. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#9008 Feb 27, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, refineries take in 14% of the revenue from gas production - the major oil companies in the U.S. in fact own the refineries. So to say big oil makes only $0.07 per gallon is a fallacy perpetuated by the American Petroleum Institute - this has already been refuted in many reputable articles.
Your last question is a good one - and I have no answer for it.
Post your proof, dupe.
The API says $0.07 for every gallong to the oil company for profit, and $0.46 for every gallon to the government for taxes.
What do you say the real numbers are.

Back your bullshit up... with something other than a left wing blog, of course.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#9009 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Post your proof, dupe.
The API says $0.07 for every gallong to the oil company for profit, and $0.46 for every gallon to the government for taxes.
What do you say the real numbers are.
Back your bullshit up... with something other than a left wing blog, of course.
You're becoming boring SFB's - there were 3 - count them - THREE links - one was a blog - you give no mention to the other two.

Refineries recieve 14% of the total cost for making gas - now who the fcuk owns the refineries dufus!!!!?????

Oh yeah - the oil companies!

Go fcuk off already - you've become boring - and simply confrontational. Got nothing better to do?

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9010 Feb 27, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
Even the fake french could never keep themselves clean. Try some bay wipes. Made just for you.
You are having problems with posting above preschools levels pookie.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9011 Feb 27, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're becoming boring SFB's - there were 3 - count them - THREE links - one was a blog - you give no mention to the other two.
Refineries recieve 14% of the total cost for making gas - now who the fcuk owns the refineries dufus!!!!?????
Oh yeah - the oil companies!
Go fcuk off already - you've become boring - and simply confrontational. Got nothing better to do?
So what, What is their net profit..........oops, I wasn't supposed to ask that. Many of the refineries are owned by other companies or co-ops pookie. Get a grip and calm down, you'll mess yourself again.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#9012 Feb 27, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're becoming boring SFB's - there were 3 - count them - THREE links - one was a blog - you give no mention to the other two.
Refineries recieve 14% of the total cost for making gas - now who the fcuk owns the refineries dufus!!!!?????
Oh yeah - the oil companies!
Go fcuk off already - you've become boring - and simply confrontational. Got nothing better to do?
14 percent of the total refinery cost, dufus. From that 14 percent you now have to not only run the refinery, you have to drill and produce the goddam wells, which you don't do in the goddam refinery, dufus.

Who owns the refineries?
The same companies that drill the wells.
The same companies that are taxed on their total profit, refineries and oil leases combined, dufus.

Now, the TOTAL company realizes $0.07 profit after expenditure for ALL operations, drilling, production, transport, refining, administration overhead, etc., while the government collects $0.46 in taxes for every gallon of gasoline sold.

Your source of information is misleading to intentionally mislead you, and cause you to look ignorant here.
blaster

South Boston, VA

#9013 Feb 27, 2013
It taught us taht satan has been handed the keys to destroy america

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#9014 Feb 27, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't make this answer so easy;
"Is there a similar case for giving oil producers subsidies? The principal tax subsidies for the oil industry are as follows: a “domestic manufacturing deduction” that allows oil and gas companies to deduct an extra 6 percent of their taxable income; a deduction for “intangible costs,” which are costs for investments in oil exploration or production that have no salvage value, such as clearing land to enable an oil well to be drilled—the oil companies are not required to amortize these costs over the entire expected life of the oil well—and last the companies are permitted to deduct royalties they pay to foreign government, on the ground that royalties paid to a government are really a tax.
The aggregate values of these subsidies to the U.S. oil industry is approximately $5 billion a year, almost as much as the industry pays in federal income tax ($5.7 billion). The industry's total profits exceed $30 billion, so it would not be facing a crushing burden if the subsidies were to be eliminated; the Obama Administration proposes to eliminate only $2 billion of the subsidies."
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/05/the...
"Earlier this month, President Obama called on Congress to repeal the $4 billion annual subsidies we give to oil companies, and they are scheduled to vote on doing so today"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/26/inv...
"Both Democrats and Republicans have widely applied the term "subsidy" to tax breaks. We think it’s semantic hair-splitting to argue the term is being improperly applied. While it may not involve the sending of a U.S. Treasury check to a company, a tax break has the same practical impact, allowing a company to hold onto money it might otherwise pay in taxes.
Defenders of the oil industry tax breaks, like Hufbauer, may argue that "Uncle Sam shouldn’t be picking winners and losers through the tax code," but that practice is undeniably widespread. A federal tax deduction for mortgage interest subsidizes homeownership. A recently expired ethanol tax credit subsidized corn growers. And the tax breaks that Obama targeted for things like "drilling costs" and "tertiary injectants" specifically subsidize the oil industry. If they did not, why would the industry’s trade association vigorously protest their proposed elimination?
We won’t address whether eliminating the oil industry tax breaks is good or bad policy. But the fact is those tax breaks do exist and they benefit the oil industry.
But Johnson arguing they are not subsidies amounts to semantic gymnastics that ignores usage commonplace among his colleagues in Washington.
On the Truth-O-Meter, Johnson’s claim rates False."
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/201...
When you need another spanking, come see me.
Your sources are notorious for using words like "subsidies" when there are no subsidies. All you did was quote politicians.

Has a politician ever lied to you?

Now, there was another post here that actually identified some of the things that were called "subsidies".
Well, it turned out those "subsidies" were actually expenses due to operations. That's not a subsidy.

You might want to read that other post for an example of how to identify something other than quote a proven source of lies like the White House.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9015 Feb 27, 2013
WHITE HOUSE BLAMES BIG SIS FOR ALIEN RELEASE ……again, nothing Is Obama’s fault.

Ok, there is blame.......Has Obama called for her to resign for over stepping her authority.....
conservative crapola

Whitehall, PA

#9016 Feb 27, 2013
au contraire wrote:
Still wetting yourself?

hahahahahahahahahaha

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#9017 Feb 27, 2013
Stoneman wrote:
I asked:.
I asked: are you still downloading child pornography or did the police take away your computer?

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9018 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
You made the statement the government paid ExxonMobil and posted a left blog to prove it.
I posted a Forbes article that stated ExxonMobil was taxed at 35 percent.
Which has more credibility? Left wing blog, or Forbes?
You haven't given any legitimate source. Therefore, you haven't provided anything to refute. Blogs are bullshit... or don't you know that?
You've yet to refute the information. If it is so inaccurate, it should be simple to refute. the fact that you don't tends to indicate you have no data in support of your position.

Thanks, every time you respond without responding you weaken your credibility.

Don't like the source, disprove it. Declaring it to be "left" merely illustrates your own bias.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#9019 Feb 27, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Your sources are notorious for using words like "subsidies" when there are no subsidies. All you did was quote politicians.
Has a politician ever lied to you?
Now, there was another post here that actually identified some of the things that were called "subsidies".
Well, it turned out those "subsidies" were actually expenses due to operations. That's not a subsidy.
You might want to read that other post for an example of how to identify something other than quote a proven source of lies like the White House.
Funny meatball how 2 of the 3 links were not blogs, and you never come up with proof of your own to refute - just your opinions and conjecture.

Go FU - you're a simple, foolish poster.
Stoneman

Boise, ID

#9020 Feb 27, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No facts, no figures.
I'll slow it down for you. You can't fundamentally support your argument. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Prove what? That gubbermint is corrupt? Politicians commit crimes? Do you need proof that the sun came up today?

Tell you what. At the turn of the 20th century, federal gubbermint spending was LESS THAN 5% of the GDP of the US. Now it's over 40%. Interestingly, the only time that there was a dip in the percentage was when we had a CONSERVATIVE Congress that had to shut down the gubbermint to force BJ Clinton to cut spending.

Since Princess Pelosi and Dickweed REid took over in 2006, spending has been out of control, more than ever.

Give me a good reason to expand gubbermint, given their track record.

I'll wait. Maybe even play the Jeopardy music.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9021 Feb 27, 2013
Stoneman wrote:
Prove what? That gubbermint is corrupt? Politicians commit crimes? Do you need proof that the sun came up today?
Right now, you are merely proving that you aren't the brightest person on the thread.

Corporations are corrupt and often commit crimes, including bribing politicians in order to influence policy. My point, specifically had to do with corporate tax avoidance, and clueless individuals, such as your self, seem utterly ill-equipped to refute the link I have provided. Way to prove yourself ineffective. Now, run along and play, the adults are having a conversation.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#9022 Feb 27, 2013
new hammer time wrote:
<quoted text>i'd leave CA also....that place will drop off into the ocean when the next MEGA QUAKE hits. run forest run.
You got a point!

Hopefully no one gets hurt!!!

It is a scientific fact that it is only a matter of time when that does happens!

But might happens after few thousand years, too!

But it WILL happen!!!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#9023 Feb 27, 2013
gaccat wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =0OyyhmKyYPMXX
Obama a pure Kenyan African like the rest of his Family,,
Obama lived in a shack and ate Ripen Marula Fruit and play with monkey's,

Lets face it Obama cant play BasketBall either that proves it,,hes Kenyan.
He worshipped a monkey god!!!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#9024 Feb 27, 2013
Stoneman wrote:
<quoted text>We'll set aside your mathematical impairment. You are a liberal, after all.

In response to your question: NO, corporations should not pay much income tax, if at all.

You lefties don't get it. Corporations aren't living, breathing entities. When you tax corporations at the SECOND HIGHEST RATE IN THE WORLD (second only to Japan, who has been in a recession since the 80's), the corporations simply put the cost into the price of their goods and services. Then everybody, including leftist morons, pay for it when they buy toilet paper and dental floss.

Which isn't that bad, come to think of it. In your leftist zeal to stick it to Evil Corporations you screwed yourself.

Just like with Obamacare, you wanted gubbermint and Evil Rich White Bald Guys to pay for your health care because you're too damned lazy or incompetent to do it yourself. I can't wait until your paycheck for driving a forklift goes down to pay for it.
Correct!

AND...

Corporations employ thousands of American workers who make good money to pay their bills and become successful!

They pay their houses, car, cellphones etc. that maintain and creates other jobs!!!

If corporations pay ZERO taxes, they would hire many more thousand people with great wages and benefits instead of giving money to lazy ghetto liberals like Lides!!!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#9025 Feb 27, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>Congratulations, for proving your own mathematical deficiencies.

What difference does the rate make if corporations don't pay them?

Not so bright, are you?

We could charge Exxon/Mobile a 20 billion % tax rate, but so long as they pay an effective rate of 0%, of course they actually received a tax refund last year despite paying no federal income tax.

Would you care to offer a defense of the no tax (plus refund), essential tax payer subsidy of one of the most profitable businesses in America, or do you have some sense of shame &/or intelligence.

The rate is irrelevant if the rate is not paid. Any idiot could understand that.
America is great financially because corporations end up paying little taxes!!!

Exactly! The less taxes the better!!!

Because then they can invest and hire more and more and those new thousand people will produce greater tax revenue!!!

Texas knows that secret!

Tax companies less and they will hire more workers that will pay taxes and everyone wins! That is why Texas needs no sales taxes, nor state taxes, etc. property taxes are enough!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#9026 Feb 27, 2013
Stoneman wrote:
<quoted text>Excellent point! General Electric paid zero tax in spite of billions in profit, just by having their CEO give Lord Obama a hummer and sit on his "jobs council" (excuse me while I barf). Dozens of solar and wind energy companies not only avoided taxes but fleeced taxpayers (not liberals) billions, simply by giving a portion to the DNC to get the Annointed One reelected.

Seems that the only way to avoid being taxed into oblivion is to 1) be large enough to get Obama's attention and 2) writing him a check.

So it seems that gubbermint is corrupt. Agreed! So what's the solution? You dimwitted libs want MORE gubbermint and MORE taxes. Brilliant!
Are you accusing Obama of hypocrisy?

What they do is fine as long as he is a Democrat. It is only an impeachable offense if it is a Republican.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#9027 Feb 27, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, they didn't fleece at nearly the levels of GE, Exxon/Mobile, Bank of America.

So your initial assertion regarding math, apparently was complete BS.

Apparently, a liberal can both, understand math, and your obfuscations. Care to have a real conversation, or are you not up to actually addressing issues?
Another Liberal fixated on math!!!

What is going here, a college math course?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 11 min Mr Wiggley 52,753
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 53 min crackerhead 1,684,594
News Booker slams DHS secretary's 'amnesia' on Trump... 1 hr Retribution 114
News Trump vs. Clinton: The feud continues even afte... 2 hr ardith 32
News US marches for women's rights slam Trump, encou... 3 hr ardith 30
News The Daily 202: Unexpected defeat in rural Wisco... 3 hr Red Crosse 32
News GOP committee blasts 'Schumer shutdown' as chai... 3 hr Quirky 109
More from around the web