Friday, March 11, 2011

Republican Deficit Cutting: Give $4 Billion to Oil Companies; Take $75 Million Away from Homeless Veterans

Zandar:

One oil company cleared over $9 billion in profit in one quarter last year. Half a billion a year to a company that earns $40 billion a year is kinda, well, chump change. Even if Exxon Mobil got all $4 billion plus in federal subsidies, and it lost them, the company still would have made more than twice that in just the last three months on the year. And Joe Barton wants you to think that if your taxpayer money doesn't go to Exxon, they will go out of business.

Now, I'm not The Donald or anything, but if we ended oil and gas subsidies tomorrow, I think every oil company in America would be 100% fine. Joe Barton on the other hand thinks you're too stupid to check his math. He wants you to feel sorry for Exxon Mobil and its fellow oil giants in an industry that made over $100 billion just in profit last year. He says if you don't give them $4 billion, they'll go out of business.

SNIP

Meanwhile, because we're giving $4 billion a year in tax dollars to an industry that doesn't need it, we have to cut $75 million from a program to give homeless veterans a place to live because we can't afford it as a country.

SNIP

To recap, $4 billion in tax money to energy companies earning tens of billions a year in profit, vital national interest. Not wasteful at all. Putting Afghanistan and Iraq veterans out on the street because we can't afford to help them as a result? We can't afford to help them, sorry. Got to cut waste.
Joe Barton got $1.5 million from oil companies and he's got to earn it. And many rethuglicans are plain stupid enough to think that cutting all spending to non-corporations and cancelling all taxes for the obscenely wealthy really will lead to a Randian utopia.

But whatever the personal excuse, the bottom line is that all rethuglican budget plans, arguments, policies, bills and amendments accomplish the same single goal:

Taking money away from everyone who is not filthy rich and giving to everyone who already is filthy rich.

That's their one measuring stick, their two-branched decision tree: Does it make rich people richer? If yes, do it. If no, don't do it.

Here are two people who explain it much better than I can:

No comments: