Here’s Boehner’s spokesman on why he opened the door to ending oil subsidies:
“He simply wasn’t going to take the bait and fall into the trap of defending ‘Big Oil’ companies,” Steel said. “Boehner believes, as he stated in the interview, that expanding American energy production will help lower gas prices and create more American jobs. We’ll look at any reasonable policy that lowers gas prices. Unfortunately, what the president has suggested so far would simply raise taxes and increase the price at the pump.”
The president proposed cutting subsidies to oil companies yesterday, because Boehner said it was “something we ought to be looking at” in an interview on Monday. Boehner opened that door, and Obama walked right in. Since Republicans have no intention of ever causing an oil company pain, Boehner’s statement would normally be called a “gaffe”.
Fortunately for Boehner, the current narrative is that he is a savvy insider, so his inability to elude a simple question is missed, and the stupidity of his press guy’s defense goes unremarked. Boehner certainly didn’t fall into the trap of defending Big Oil — instead, he walked into the trap of entertaining the possibility that Big Oil might actually pay a dollar of taxes someday.
Another day, another example of our media’s obsession to ensure that any conservative gaffe, mistake, or objectively ridiculous action is instead painted as desirable savvy.
Rational people are drowning in this sea of misinformation and obfuscation. And the media is doing a damn fine job of throwing a life ring to us with one hand, while holding our head under the water with the other.
since Boner is AOK with subsidizing big oil, and his priority is to ensure lower gas prices for consumers (which he doesn’t really want, because it’s the President’s approval that gets dinged for high gas, not his own) the logical next step is for Boner to propose that we give big oil even more subsidies.
soshulism is AOK when people like it!
A halfway competent journalist might have asked “How?” at this point.
This is the key; but it’s also the reason television is bleeding viewers, and I do believe the shows that are losing the most are “news.” Some people are getting that it’s not information, it’s infotainment.
But that’s going to be generations in the making.
holy shit, the commenters on that Hill article are dumb.
fucking idiot. we’re already paying the price! all those tax dollars lost to subsidies are dollars that the rest of us have to make up, eventually, one way or another.
Brian S (formerly Incertus)
To be fair, even if the question had been asked, Boehner would have ignored it, so by not asking the question, our reporters did their part to fight climate change by not adding to the hot air being emitted.
Villago Delenda Est
Alas, all we have now are stenographers filling the journalist positions.
That article is pretty amusing. What strikes me is the scrambling and contortions that ensue when Boehner says something remotely reasonable regarding fiscal realities. Cripes, just reading that “clarification” from his hapless spokesman makes my back and joints ache.
Poor Boehner. Tune in tomorrow for the next episode of “The Perils of John Boehner.” Or maybe “John Boehner Faces Life.”
Or even “Twin Peaks,” starring John Boehner.
A Humble Lurker
Let them paint away. It’s conceited yes-men like this that might very well have lured the right into the Venus flytrap of messin’ with medicare. When you’re a propaganda spewer, it’s of the utmost importance you remember what’s actually true. But I’m not sure these guys do anymore, and it could (read: COULD) be the tool of their destruction.
Let the Village urge Republicans into sticking their johnsons in weed wackers. It’s no skin off my nose if they take their advice.
Completed that for you.
Villago Delenda Est
The beauty thing is that the vermin that are the teatards will do all the wetwork on Boner. All that Obama has to do is sit back and enjoy the show.
@Brian S (formerly Incertus): Yes but an all the way competent journalist would have pressed him and when still receiving no response would have written: Boehner’s spokesman was evasive and unresponsive when asked for details on how ending oil subsidies would increases prices at the pump. So we spoke with economics professor…
For the want of a pony.
The Republic of Stupidity
They’re beyond dumb…
I just went over to see what you were talking about and I’m stunned…
And yes, the obligatory Soros slam is to be had…
Orange Julius is such a mess.
The Moar You Know
Damn right he didn’t. Instead, he reframed it in a manner that all Americans can understand:
What you have missed is that most Americans are dumb as a fucking brick wall, and will believe this. It is simple and doesn’t contain any references to all that brain-hurty tax shit that they don’t understand.
@Comrade Javamanphil: Gosh, that took me back. I remember Journalism.
And pigs will fly.
Meanwhile, Obama just released his long-form birth certificate. Trump takes credit. I give up.
@cleek: Wow. Well, that’s great news! I say that because yesterday we had a deficit problem, and we were Taxed Enough Already. Today, apparently, that’s all gone away. Tax and spend all you want, Uncle Sam!
How? Extortion. This is not difficult to understand. The oil companies get big subsidies and don’t pay taxes and crank the price of gas up, so if you ask them to accept less subsidies, they will crank the price of gas up even worse to punish those suggesting the idea.
It’s extortion, driven by fiduciary duty and the basic function of a corporation within the context of the not-really-any-law they operate under.
The question is not ‘how do you ask the company to take less subsidy and not crank up the price of gas even sooner than it has to’, because the company has no brain or heart: it’s basically a plant, it grows towards profit in whatever container you’ve got it in.
Right now they’re basically kudzu in no container at all, so they WILL be cranking up the price of gas and demanding more subsidies anyway whatever Obama does. They can’t NOT do this, because they’re not in a container.
Any Republicans suggesting that supporting oil companies will help the economy are basically telling kudzu to grow nice. A lot of these guys are in the South and you’d think they’d have seen kudzu before, but whatever.
@jinxtigr: Why do you hate
I especially like the notion that eliminating a corporate subsidy equals raising taxes. “Parasites” get handouts in foodstamps and government cheese; captains of industry get them in cash money and free land. The Republicans don’t really mind parasites, but they object to cut-rate ones.
“entertaining the possibility that Big Oil might actually pay a dollar of taxes someday.”
Oddly enough, the Income statement attached to ExxonMobil’s SEC Form 10-K for 2010 shows income tax expense of approximately $21.5 billion. Unless you know something about the contents of a tax return that hasn’t been filed yet, you may want to shift the argument from whether Big Oil pays any taxes to whether they pay the right amount of tax to the right countries. A worldwide effective tax rate in single digits gives you plenty of room to make that argument.
Saw this on Reddit, thought it was intriguing, considering the Village would never blame anyone BUT Obama if this is the case.
@burnspbesq: I think the kangaroo mouse/blogger confused Exxon with GE, BOA, or any number other companies. Of course, they are not so relevant to the issue of Oil company subsidies.
It makes sense that financial services companies wouldn’t have current income tax expense. They probably have bazillions of dollars of net operating loss carryovers.