Do we need to talk about Obama’s $10-per-barrel oil tax proposal?

posted at 10:01 pm on February 4, 2016 by Allahpundit

It’s not going to happen and I don’t get paid by the word. Can “whatever” suffice as a reaction to this?

Okay, here’s a thought. The odds of a tax hike passing a Republican Congress in an election year are about the same, I’d guess, as the odds of Trump skipping another debate.

Obama aides told POLITICO that when he releases his final budget request next week, the president will propose more than $300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion. To pay for it all, Obama will call for a $10 “fee” on every barrel of oil, a surcharge that would be paid by oil companies but would presumably be passed along to consumers.

There is no real chance that the Republican-controlled Congress will embrace Obama’s grand vision of climate-friendly mobility in an election year—especially after passing a long-stalled bipartisan highway bill just last year—and his aides acknowledge it’s mostly an effort to jump-start a conversation about the future of transportation. But by raising the specter of new taxes on fossil fuels, it could create a political quandary for Democrats. The fee could add as much as 25 cents a gallon to the cost of gasoline, and even with petroleum prices at historic lows, the proposal could be particularly awkward for Hillary Clinton, who has embraced most of Obama’s policies but has also vowed to oppose any tax hikes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.

A 10-buck-a-barrel tax comes out to 22 cents on the gallon, notes economist Donald Marron, which would more than double the current federal gas tax of 18.4 cents for regular gasoline. Did I dream it or haven’t we spent the past eight months watching Trump and Bernie Sanders vault into contention for their parties’ nominations by arguing (in very different ways) that America’s political class has abandoned its working class? Trump targets immigration while Sanders targets redistribution, but they’re both protectionists and economic populists who promise blue-collar voters more money in their pockets after they’re elected. Every analysis of Trumpmania or Berniemania includes a requisite passage describing wage stagnation among the middle class over many years and the inevitable backlash that’s now provoked on the left and right. Finally, the middle class catches a tiny break economically with plummeting gas prices … and here comes Obama to propose screwing them on that too with one of the most regressive taxes he could realistically propose. Am I taking crazy pills? Americans can’t possibly be so stupid as to think this tax would be absorbed by oil companies and not passed on to consumers at the pump, can they?

Can they?

What’s Obama’s game here? Is it just a pander demagoging “Big Oil” that assumes voters don’t understand how taxes work? Is he laying down a “legacy” marker so that historians can say he gave it the ol’ college try on raising revenue for infrastructure spending and clean energy? Is he just pranking Sanders and Clinton by forcing them to explain to voters why recapturing the average joe’s small savings on gas for the federal leviathan is worth doing? It’s one thing to take a political risk when the policy is worthwhile and has a chance of passing. Why do it when it doesn’t?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ryan and McConnell will compromise and only impose a $10/bbl tax.

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:03 PM

Not really, nothing surprises me anymore.

NCPatriot75 on February 4, 2016 at 10:05 PM

If this is passed the doon people will tighten the pumps

Orchestrated shite from the wanna be ruling class

Mr Soames on February 4, 2016 at 10:05 PM

No

cozmo on February 4, 2016 at 10:07 PM

Ryan and McConnell will compromise and only impose a $10/bbl tax.

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:03 PM

…and declare…there was nothing they could do!

JugEarsButtHurt on February 4, 2016 at 10:07 PM

Self driving cars, seriously? We’re having our most sensitive systems hacked by everyone so let’s put a few million autonomous, computer-controlled, passenger vehicles on the road.

Nothing like cruising down the mountains towards Oakland when your self-driving car suffers a hacking intrusion which disables the brakes.

Bishop on February 4, 2016 at 10:09 PM

The idea that you should levy a tax against oil when the price is going down is the height of folly.

A stiff tax like that would further reduce consumption, and be an arrow in the heart of our indigenous oil industry. Of course that’s what the global warming “climate change” leftists want. The fear mongering loons.

anotherJoe on February 4, 2016 at 10:09 PM

Do we need to talk about Obama’s $10-per-barrel oil tax proposal?

Not really.

It’s the proposal of a semi-retired president and lame-duck loser who’s struggling to be relevant.

Aizen on February 4, 2016 at 10:09 PM

Will someone ask Hillary about this $300 billion dollar tax…

d1carter on February 4, 2016 at 10:12 PM

It’s one thing to take a political risk when the policy is worthwhile and has a chance of passing. Why do it when it doesn’t?


And what political risk is he taking?

It’s one thing to postulate there is one and something else to state what it would be.

PolAgnostic on February 4, 2016 at 10:16 PM

Americans can’t possibly be so stupid as to think this tax would be absorbed by oil companies and not passed on to consumers at the pump, can they?

Sure they are.

Look at “corporate” taxes, every penny of which is paid by the consumer, and yet liberals are all for raising them at every opportunity.

Rebar on February 4, 2016 at 10:17 PM

Said it days ago as the first exports were put in place. Uncle Sugar would be making less with current prices and would thus want more in return for ruining the oil and gas business. Same old government, different day.

Limerick on February 4, 2016 at 10:17 PM

Self driving cars, seriously? We’re having our most sensitive systems hacked by everyone so let’s put a few million autonomous, computer-controlled, passenger vehicles on the road.

Nothing like cruising down the mountains towards Oakland when your self-driving car suffers a hacking intrusion which disables the brakes.

Bishop on February 4, 2016 at 10:09 PM

Link.

Yes, the guys in this article are currently limited to Fiat/Chrysler products. Do you think they’ll never be able to go through OnStar? Bluetooth?

GrumpyOldFart on February 4, 2016 at 10:19 PM

He did it because he’s a azzhole, this stuff will be non stop ’til he’s gone.

CaveBear on February 4, 2016 at 10:19 PM

Self driving cars, seriously? We’re having our most sensitive systems hacked by everyone so let’s put a few million autonomous, computer-controlled, passenger vehicles on the road.

Nothing like cruising down the mountains towards Oakland Fort Marcy Park when your self-driving car suffers a hacking intrusion which disables the brakes.

Bishop on February 4, 2016 at 10:09 PM

Somewhere, the Clintons are steepling their fingers.

Aizen on February 4, 2016 at 10:19 PM

Americans can’t possibly be so stupid as to think this tax would be absorbed by oil companies and not passed on to consumers at the pump, can they?

Some can.

Many years ago, when my sister and I could still talk politics, I discovered that she totally denied that taxes on businesses were passed along to the consumers, asserting that they were absorbed somehow by the companies themselves.
She is an intelligent, highly educated, well-read professional.

**SMH**

No sane country would allow their children to get out of high school with an understanding of basic economics.

AesopFan on February 4, 2016 at 10:21 PM

Why is he bringing this up? It has no chance of passing. It will only serve to be a new issue in the election. There is a plan here, I just don’t see what it is…yet.

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:21 PM

Just wait until he’s out of office to see what damage that piece of sh!t causes…assuming he goes.

SouthernGent on February 4, 2016 at 10:22 PM

A steaming, piping hot mug of melena to you Mr. Obama. Prosit!

Mason on February 4, 2016 at 10:23 PM

This is the easiest tax proposal to oppose ever. The “fuel dividend”, from the cheap oil due to big oil and opec not able to price fix anymore, needs to be put into the pockets of normal people so they can boost the economy and pay their bills. I mean they can’t even use their usual soak the rich arguments for this one.

What a stupid proposal only a Krauthammer could love.

Buddahpundit on February 4, 2016 at 10:23 PM

Of course if he wants to tax exported barrels, okay.

Buddahpundit on February 4, 2016 at 10:25 PM

No sane country would allow their children to get out of high school with an understanding of basic economics.

AesopFan on February 4, 2016 at 10:21 PM

And there we finally find the fragment.

Scalpel.

And get that cat out of here.

Axe on February 4, 2016 at 10:26 PM

Only if we chat about how California Governor Moonglow’s Low Speed rail project between LA and SF is doing.

Dear Leader is obviously not intelligent enough to realize that this idiotic proposal will impact the state he spends multi-million dollar Christmas vacations in massively, because that state depends on OIL for almost all of its energy right now.

Always been that way, always will be. Shut the oil off to Hawai’i, and watch the results!

Speaking of which, can any of our Hot Gas kama’ainas update us on the non-progress of the new Honolulu Monorail?

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2016 at 10:27 PM

Just wait until he’s out of office to see what damage that piece of sh!t causes

At least BC farted around with his corrupt foundation and somewhat kept his nose out of politics.

Obama will spend the next 25 years as President Emeritus. His narcissism will not let him fade into the night, and the media will constantly seek his sage wisdom if he is not already cramming it down our throats.

Wait for the “Office of the Former POTUS” press conferences a la the “Office of the President Elect” conferences he held in Dec 2008.

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:27 PM

No sane country would allow their children to get out of high school with an understanding of basic economics.

AesopFan on February 4, 2016 at 10:21 PM

Bet you wish there was an edit function. -_-

Bishop on February 4, 2016 at 10:28 PM

Just wait until he’s out of office to see what damage that piece of sh!t causes…assuming he goes.

SouthernGent on February 4, 2016 at 10:22 PM

Eh. I think people on our side tend to exaggerate the whole “Will Obama willingly leave the White House?” thing. Obama is famously lazy (by his and Michelle’s own admission) and it’s clear enough by now that Obama figured he could “be president” without really exerting much effort. His presidency has rested upon the idea that all he has to do is give a speech and things will magically fix themselves by the power of his voice. So, yeah, he’ll go vacation in Hawaii for a few weeks/months before he becomes the new Jimmy Carter.

Now, Missus Clinton is a different story. I could definitely see her being dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming, if not while in a straightjacket.

Aizen on February 4, 2016 at 10:29 PM

Do we need to talk about Obama’s $10-per-barrel oil tax proposal?

You would hope not, with bullet proof majorities in both House and Senate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Republicans capitulated.

Rode Werk on February 4, 2016 at 10:30 PM

No sane country would allow their children to get out of high school with an understanding of basic economics.

AesopFan on February 4, 2016 at 10:21 PM

Kids graduating HS are barely literate. Economics is a bit of a stretch.

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:31 PM

Keep an eye out for him attempting to impose this levy by some administrative rule

BD57 on February 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM

Now, Missus Clinton is a different story. I could definitely see her being dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming, if not while in a straightjacket.

Aizen on February 4, 2016 at 10:29 PM

She’ll be happy as long as she has he secret service servants and can find a way to take $10million vacations on our dime.

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM

Do we need to talk about Obama’s $10-per-barrel oil tax proposal?

How will the GOPe be powerless to stop themselves from passing this part of the Democrat agenda into law?

RJL on February 4, 2016 at 10:34 PM

Keep an eye out for him attempting to impose this levy by some administrative rule

BD57 on February 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM

Didn’t think of that. Some kind of EPA “Environmental impact fee” or “Carbon fee”.

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:35 PM

I heard two old people screaming at each other here in Austin. Turns out I was hearing Hil and Bern in NH. Was there a jet engine running in the studio?

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:40 PM

She’ll be happy as long as she has he secret service servants and can find a way to take $10million vacations on our dime.

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:33 PM

Wait. You mean … she doesn’t do that now?

Is Bill spending all the pension money on hookers and blow?

Aizen on February 4, 2016 at 10:43 PM

20 minutes left in the Democrat debate at MSNBC.com.

Don’t miss it!!! Liberal vs Liberal knock out fight.

More fun than a conservative should allowed to have!!!

wren on February 4, 2016 at 10:43 PM

If we were to talk about it, one could mention a few things:

$10 per barrel with the current price at about $30 /bbl equals a 33% tax rate, on top of what the government already collects.

A clear target of the barrel tax would be shale oil and its higher cost. Barry, doing the work of OPEC again.

Low income and middle income America screwed again.

parke on February 4, 2016 at 10:48 PM

“Whatever” would have worked AP.

Barred on February 4, 2016 at 10:50 PM

What’s to “talk about”?
.
It needs to be rejected, and denied.

listens2glenn on February 4, 2016 at 10:57 PM

What’s Obama’s game here? Is it just a pander demagoging “Big Oil” that assumes voters don’t understand how taxes work? Is he laying down a “legacy” marker so that historians can say he gave it the ol’ college try on raising revenue for infrastructure spending and clean energy? Is he just pranking Sanders and Clinton by forcing them to explain to voters why recapturing the average joe’s small savings on gas for the federal leviathan is worth doing? It’s one thing to take a political risk when the policy is worthwhile and has a chance of passing. Why do it when it doesn’t?

Global warming aka climate change is a kind of secular religion for Leftists; it is the key to government regulation of huge segments of the economy and and a tool to advance multiple agendas. These people are true believers in a faith that justifies many of their self-serving and self-gratifying policy preferences; for them it is a matter of personal identity.

It’s not hard to anticipate people who believe this way think the crash in oil prices and subsequent upsurge in consumption is a bad thing. In their hearts they believe the harmful effect of the oil market crash on the climate (in reality, immeasurably minuscule) outweighs any economic benefits even if they inure largely to the benefit of lower and middle class people. Why wouldn’t they think the obvious way to right this wrong is to take some of that money and spend it on new sacrifices on the altar of technically unfeasible and economically uncompetitive green energy? Ignore the Econ 101 reality that taxes are passed on to the ultimate consumer. Tell yourself it’s a tax on the oil companies and avoid any cognitive dissonance about the costs imposed on those least able to afford them. (That might lead to second thoughts or even guilt. That way lies apostasy; best to nip it in the bud.)

I think this is just some tribal signalling. It’s hardly surprising that Obama would engage in utterly empty political gestures to keep the crew motivated, is it?

novaculus on February 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM

Mass transit, rail, “people movers”, all running on “clean” energy.

Does anyone remember when LBJ tried to ride this same train?

Transportation initiatives started during President Johnson’s term in office included the consolidation of transportation agencies into a cabinet-level position under the Department of Transportation. The department was authorized by Congress on October 15, 1966 and began operations on April 1, 1967. Congress passed a variety of legislation to support improvements in transportation including The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 which provided $375 million for large-scale urban public or private rail projects in the form of matching funds to cities and states and created the Urban Mass Transit Administration (now the Federal Transit Administration), High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965 which resulted in the creation of high-speed rail between New York and Washington, and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966—a bill largely taken credit for by Ralph Nader, whose book Unsafe at Any Speed he claims helped inspire the legislation.

Great Society- Wikipedia

Progressives have been beating this dead horse longer than they’ve been beating us over the head about “Holy Mother Gaia”. In fact, it’s been a progressive obsession going back to before World War One. One I guarantee you Che’ Bernie and Hillary! share.

The progressives have had a century of spending our money on it and failing to get it to work. They keep getting mugged by physics and economics.

Not that The One cares. He’s a primitivist mystic who thinks everyone else should walk while he rides a magic carpet. Wrecking the national transportation system is just one more way of destroying the Evil Materialistic West (TM) in his estimation.

That’s what you get for electing somebody to be president who only listens to the little voices in his head.

clear ether

eon

eon on February 4, 2016 at 11:01 PM

Nothing like cruising down the mountains towards Oakland when your self-driving car suffers a hacking intrusion which disables the brakes.

Bishop on February 4, 2016 at 10:09 PM

You forgot the tunnel on that hill.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on February 4, 2016 at 11:07 PM

The proletariat are buying SUVs again instead of Priuses. Time to tighten the screws!!!

RedHotFuzz on February 4, 2016 at 11:16 PM

Yes! Yes they can and are! I am amazed at the economic stupidity of my fellow workers! They don’t have a clue unless you beat them over the head with facts.

You have to do it softly though so as not to bruise their little feelings with bad, very bad trigger words.

Vince on February 4, 2016 at 11:40 PM

Vince on February 4, 2016 at 11:40 PM

Americans can’t possibly be so stupid as to think this tax would be absorbed by oil companies and not passed on to consumers at the pump, can they?

Can they?

Sorry. I was responding to the question above.

Vince on February 4, 2016 at 11:42 PM

Obama doesn’t think we’re paying enough for gas!

LilyBart on February 4, 2016 at 11:51 PM

Ryan and McConnell will compromise and only impose a $10/bbl tax.

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:03 PM

If you’re going to sculpt comments like that, make sure to cover the privates when the Iranians show up.

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2016 at 11:53 PM

A 10-buck-a-barrel tax comes out to 22 cents on the gallon, notes economist Donald Marron, which would more than double the current federal gas tax of 18.4 cents for regular gasoline.

The greedy hand of government. Government already makes more money on every gallon of gas sold than the oil companies!

LilyBart on February 4, 2016 at 11:54 PM

If you’re going to sculpt comments like that, make sure to cover the privates when the Iranians show up.

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2016 at 11:53 PM

nice.

LilyBart on February 4, 2016 at 11:55 PM

Look, liberals love to describe the utopia that awaits us if only their latest scheme was implemented. And these schemes always cost 100’s of billions of dollars. Now when advancing these utopian dreams it’s traditional that you also include how you are going to pay for them. Usually this includes some heavy duty fibbing but the point is it’s only a fig left anyway. The main point of the exercise is that once the scheme is shot down, the liberals can point to any Republican who opposed it and say, “see, we would only be in paradise now but for those evil Republicans.” So how the thing would have been paid for is, at best, a meaningless side-show.

Fred 2 on February 5, 2016 at 1:11 AM

Gas $1.67 today in NC. Yeehah

cimbri on February 5, 2016 at 3:45 AM

It’s one thing to take a political risk when the policy is worthwhile and has a chance of passing. Why do it when it doesn’t?

Unlike others here, I don’t believe Hussein cares about pleasing his constituency, an ideology or a legacy. My feeling is that just like visiting a mosque to praise islam and berate Americans, he just loves to give us his arrogant middle finger.
He can’t help himself, he really enjoys flippin’ us off on national TV.

AppraisHer on February 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM

$300 billion worth of investments over the next decade in mass transit, high-speed rail, self-driving cars, and other transportation approaches designed to reduce carbon emissions and congestion.

What a great idea! New York City has more mass transit and high-speed rail (subways) than anywhere and look how clean and uncongested it is.

FOAF on February 5, 2016 at 4:00 AM

Marco Rubio will be for this and against it before the weekend is over, and Fox News will call him reasoned and conservative because of his position (s)

NYCMike on February 5, 2016 at 6:00 AM

the proposal could be particularly awkward for Hillary Clinton, who has embraced most of Obama’s policies but has also vowed to oppose any tax hikes on families earning less than $250,000 a year.

She’d be for it. It isn’t a tax on families, but a tax on oil. So, in HillaryWorld, she’s Just Fine with wordsmithing it that way.

Sure, it really is a tax that affects families, from the car to the light switch, but it isn’t ON them. Weasel wording is her specialty.

ProfShadow on February 5, 2016 at 6:04 AM

Sure, it really is a tax that affects families, from the car to the light switch, but it isn’t ON them. Weasel wording is her specialty.

ProfShadow on February 5, 2016 at 6:04 AM

Interesting that it is not a tax at the pump, but tax at the refinery inlet.

That means that there is also a tax on plastics, clothes, medicines, fertilizers, road tar, roofing materials, paint, cosmetics, solvents, lubricants, shampoo, refrigerants – a tiny list of things made from petroleum.

I don’t think that this will be form of a VAT, that is, foreign manufacturers don’t have to list what percentage of oil they use in their products, and it isn’t like Japan will have to pay the tax on every barrel of oil they receive from anywhere else on the planet.

It means that American oil based products will be at a further disadvantage to products made elsewhere. Plastic manufacturers in China will see American plastics that much more expensive.

This tax proposal is probably a finger in the eye of those who support exporting oil from the US. Barry just wants to make the US Oil non-competitive with that extracted from his Muslim friends.

This man should be tried for treason – this is yet one out of many reasons.

Reuben Hick on February 5, 2016 at 6:40 AM

It wouldn’t surprise me if Ryan gives Obama everything he wants. They only have one more year to sell us out. They have to get in as much damage as possible.

cajunpatriot on February 5, 2016 at 6:42 AM

Del,

Here you go, a couple of years ago they were also talking about rail from Honolulu over to windward, though I don’t think anyone decided where they were going to put it given the delays the H3 had and having either to eliminate one of the roads or punching another tunnel through the Koolau range.

F X Muldoon on February 5, 2016 at 6:53 AM

PHAHCK da Obutthole. His expiration date is way past due.

soghornetgunner on February 5, 2016 at 7:07 AM

Americans can’t possibly be so stupid as to think this tax would be absorbed by oil companies and not passed on to consumers at the pump, can they?

Americans, no. Democrats, yes. Businesses regularly absorb new costs without passing it onto their customers. What Democrats seem not to understand is that this only happens when said costs are not also being borne by their competitors.

So, if a company decides to open a new plant, it will absorb those costs without raising prices. However, if government raises the taxes of everyone in a particular business, those costs are reflected in higher prices.

Occams Stubble on February 5, 2016 at 7:09 AM

What is the left’s obsession with high speed rail? Trains are so 1860’s and limited as they can only go where the rails take them.

I always thought progressives wanted progress? Talk about Irony…

Scorched_Earth on February 5, 2016 at 7:12 AM

Speaking of rails. I can’t wait until we run Obama out of DC on one.

Scorched_Earth on February 5, 2016 at 7:13 AM

It’s one thing to take a political risk when the policy is worthwhile and has a chance of passing. Why do it when it doesn’t?

Because he’s interviewing for Eric Schmidt.

BKeyser on February 5, 2016 at 7:26 AM

Obama absolutely hates the middle class.

sadatoni on February 5, 2016 at 7:43 AM

Ryan and McConnell will compromise and only impose a $10/bbl tax.

tdarrington on February 4, 2016 at 10:03 PM

You sir or madam belong in the sarcasm Hall of Fame.

Lance Corvette on February 5, 2016 at 7:50 AM

Why did BO propose this stupid tax?

This is all part of his resume building time for his next job……Sec Gen of the UN. He plans on ruling the world.

David in ATL on February 5, 2016 at 7:54 AM

But, when the price of oil goes back up they would repeal this tax hike just like the airlines removed all those fuel surcharges now that the price of oil went down. Right?

parthos on February 5, 2016 at 8:23 AM

We are the marginal oil producers. Any decrease in use comes out our domestic producers hide. Instead of taxing oil to hurt our already hurting oil producing sector, we should take this opportunity of low oil prices to fill the strategic petroleum reserve with domestically produced oil. Saudi Arabia is trying to put our oil producers out of business, why should the US government try to help them?

KW64 on February 5, 2016 at 8:47 AM

Late to the dance commenting on this one, but on our local news station this morning (Pensacola FL) they said this gas tax had “broad support” in congress. I thought I was hearing things since I wasn’t halfway through my cup of coffee yet, but thanks to modern technology I was able to rewind and sure enough thats what they said. Now this is either first class mainstream media propaganda straight up, or someone read there teleprompter incorrectly…or they no something we don’t.

Vigilante on February 5, 2016 at 9:11 AM

He’s laying the ground work for future greenies. He’s showing that taxation by a heavy handed, grab enough money for the moment govt to keep promoting the hoax is still the way to go. They will work to get hoax minded politicians elected to carry out the dream. This will not go away until hell is frozen.

Kissmygrits on February 5, 2016 at 9:14 AM

To a liberal progressive there is never a bad time to raise taxes.

Never forget Ronald Reagan.

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Tommyhour on February 5, 2016 at 9:24 AM

I’m already paying 28% TAX on every gallon of gas I buy now.

Who is this Obama guy anyway? Why is he soaking me of every dollar I earn?

Turtle317 on February 5, 2016 at 9:56 AM

adding tax to oil is a FANTASTIC idea! The economy is grinding to a halt (.7% growth last quarter) and layoffs were at a 6 month high last month.

What better time for King Sh*t Midas (everything this loser touches turns to sh*t) to tax the oil industry into oblivion, and in the process punch every working stiff that has to drive to work right in the face?

As ever, thanks for nuttin’, imbecile 52%.

GrassMudHorsey on February 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM

When we hear about a bank robbery on the local news, we realise that a common thief is stealing someone else’s money. When we hear that Barack Obama wants to increase the price of oil by raising the price $10 dollars for each barrel of oil we realise that we are watching another common thief stealing money directly out of the American citizen’s pockets. These politicians do this by hiding behind a facade of “Green-energy.” These people are ALWAYS running a scam like this ! One of my favorite “shell-games” which is always bubbling out of Washington is “Global-Warming !” If any one wants to see a perfect example of the eternal “con-artists” at work, I highly recommend you watch “The Flim-Flam Man” with George C. Scott in the title role ! You will get a real example of how the con-men work in Washington D.C. !

Bugdust172 on February 5, 2016 at 10:45 AM

Do we need to talk about Obama’s $10-per-barrel oil tax proposal?

Rantings of an idiot

txdoc on February 5, 2016 at 12:09 PM

If an aspect of the nation’s economy shows any signs of life, quickly apply leeches.

If that aspect of the economy still shows any level of vitality, apply more leeches.

Regardless of it’s future performance, those leeches in place are never to be removed.

This is the Obama way. Suck the life’s blood out of the American economy and divert it to the wasteful, corrupt, and fraud ridden government to do with what it pleases.

Oxymoron on February 5, 2016 at 12:16 PM

adding tax to oil is a FANTASTIC idea! The economy is grinding to a halt (.7% growth last quarter) and layoffs were at a 6 month high last month.

What better time for King Sh*t Midas (everything this loser touches turns to sh*t) to tax the oil industry into oblivion, and in the process punch every working stiff that has to drive to work right in the face?

As ever, thanks for nuttin’, imbecile 52%.

GrassMudHorsey on February 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM

Not to mention firing a broadside into one of the few areas that are actually showing any signs of job growth.

Keep them down, keep them dependent. They have to need big govt in order to want big govt.

Oxymoron on February 5, 2016 at 12:20 PM

A first “Sin Tax” on fossil fuels that can be increased annually like they do with a pack of cigarettes…until they get us weaned off our addiction to oil. That’s what I think Obama and his global warming alarmists are trying to do.

Every policy agenda item Obama pushes for now is one less potential roadblock or landmine for the Democratic nominee. Hillary will just put her finger in the air to gauge support or just bide her time until after the election.

Personally, I use this as one more teachable moment to demonstrate the evil and selfishness of the Progressives who feel we already keep too much of our paychecks and therefore have an extra $.22/gallon of their money that should be going to them instead of staying in our own pockets.

HoosierStateofMind on February 5, 2016 at 12:57 PM