Thats all we need is more inspectors more bureaucrats on the fed payroll, get more laws, cause the rail system billions of dollars to up grade or purchase new oil tankers. Pay the feds for more inspections, more paper work, more Bull S and help drive the price of gas up. I’m trying to put a wind mill on top of my Pick up now.
Perhaps we could simply remove the $7,000,000,000 in ANNUAL tax incentives that we, the US tax payers GIVE to the oil industry, and use a portion to reinvest in our aging rail system?
It’s the same difference as far as I’m concerned. If they don’t have to pay it in taxes, it’s the same as a check. And it’s we, the taxpayers, that pick up the slack.
There is NO difference. GIVING the fossil fuel industry $7,000,000,000 in annual tax breaks = the US taxpayers GIVING the fossil fuel industy $7,000,000,000. There is no difference at all.
Some in Washington call it “tax expenditures”. It’s all the same.
I not only support removing those subsidies, but also those to the ethanol, wind, solar, and biofuels sectors. Let them compete fairly in the market on their own merits, rather than the extent to which they can curry political favors. Taxpayers and consumers will all rejoice.
This is not more inspections or inspectors, it is proper classification of risk. That is something everyone in the industry ought to understand and agree with. If not, then there is an incomplete understanding of our industry core principles, functions, and operating requirements.
All the better reason for the Keystone Pipeline. Most of that crude will come from Canada but, it is my understanding that a lot will be diverted into the pipeline from the North Dakota oil fields.
Thats all we need is more inspectors more bureaucrats on the fed payroll, get more laws, cause the rail system billions of dollars to up grade or purchase new oil tankers. Pay the feds for more inspections, more paper work, more Bull S and help drive the price of gas up. I’m trying to put a wind mill on top of my Pick up now.
Perhaps we could simply remove the $7,000,000,000 in ANNUAL tax incentives that we, the US tax payers GIVE to the oil industry, and use a portion to reinvest in our aging rail system?
Is that “give” as in writing them a check or “give” as in them not paying those $ in taxes. BIG difference. Words have meaning.
It’s the same difference as far as I’m concerned. If they don’t have to pay it in taxes, it’s the same as a check. And it’s we, the taxpayers, that pick up the slack.
There is NO difference. GIVING the fossil fuel industry $7,000,000,000 in annual tax breaks = the US taxpayers GIVING the fossil fuel industy $7,000,000,000. There is no difference at all.
Some in Washington call it “tax expenditures”. It’s all the same.
I not only support removing those subsidies, but also those to the ethanol, wind, solar, and biofuels sectors. Let them compete fairly in the market on their own merits, rather than the extent to which they can curry political favors. Taxpayers and consumers will all rejoice.
This is not more inspections or inspectors, it is proper classification of risk. That is something everyone in the industry ought to understand and agree with. If not, then there is an incomplete understanding of our industry core principles, functions, and operating requirements.
All the better reason for the Keystone Pipeline. Most of that crude will come from Canada but, it is my understanding that a lot will be diverted into the pipeline from the North Dakota oil fields.