"...doing just fine on their own."

[Old Rocks]

The crys of the ox that is getting gored.

There are a number of problems that are associated with the use of fossil fuels. So we are going to have to choose between our health, environment, and food, and the use of fossil fuels. Ain't a happy choice, but one that will have to be made.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Cutting to the Chase: The Obama Agenda is to have the government picks then winners and losers and to make sure everyone knows it so they will "comply".

The current "winners" are oil companies, whose product also has quite large negative externalities associated with it. They "win" to the tune of billions in direct subsidies each year.

Obama is recommending putting an end to that "winning" and so-called Conservatives are busy endlessly justifying the subsidy.

He's just going to transfer the billions to "green energy" initiatives, which will yield ZIPPO.

The man's a rigid ideologue hellbent on imposing his view of "good" on us regardless of reality. And that reality is, as the economy ramps up, we will need more oil... PERIOD. And with stifled production, we will very soon see $140/barrel oil and crash it will go, again.

These fuckers are DANGEROUS.

 

[Mr. H.]

The current "winners" are oil companies, whose product also has quite large negative externalities associated with it. They "win" to the tune of billions in direct subsidies each year.

Obama is recommending putting an end to that "winning" and so-called Conservatives are busy endlessly justifying the subsidy.

Could you do us a favor and go into a little more detail on those direct subsidies?

Sure.

A domestic manufacturing tax deduction worth 1.73B
Acceleratated depreciation schedules worth 4B
Tax credit for production of nonconventional fuels (i.e. shale etc...) worth about 2B
Royalties and mineral rights subsidies worth 1-3B

...I could go on...

With very few exceptions, these "subsidies" are no different than those available to other industries. So why single out the oil and gas industry? Because it's profitable? It's less profitable than other sectors of the economy.

And w/re: to the unique tax treatments that do benefit oil and gas, the returns to the government more than offset the preferences. Investment, economic activity, jobs, and increased production.

 

[8537]

Cutting to the Chase: The Obama Agenda is to have the government picks then winners and losers and to make sure everyone knows it so they will "comply".

The current "winners" are oil companies, whose product also has quite large negative externalities associated with it. They "win" to the tune of billions in direct subsidies each year.

Obama is recommending putting an end to that "winning" and so-called Conservatives are busy endlessly justifying the subsidy.

He's just going to transfer the billions to "green energy" initiatives, which will yield ZIPPO.

Which, even if it were true, would yield a better result than subsidizing oil companies. At least green energy initiatives don't come with such significant negative externalities.

These fuckers are DANGEROUS.

Indeed, these fuckers in the oil industry are dangerous.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Although the "Greenies" find oil offensive, our economy runs on oil; like it or not. There is no switch to be flipped where miraculously we go from oil to windmills overnight. Get real.

 

[8537]

Could you do us a favor and go into a little more detail on those direct subsidies?

Sure.

A domestic manufacturing tax deduction worth 1.73B
Acceleratated depreciation schedules worth 4B
Tax credit for production of nonconventional fuels (i.e. shale etc...) worth about 2B
Royalties and mineral rights subsidies worth 1-3B

...I could go on...

With very few exceptions, these "subsidies" are no different than those available to other industries.

No, that is wrong. Other industries can not access the domestic manufacturing tax deduction, the accelerated depreciation schedules carved out for oil companies, or the royalties subsidy from use of public lands and public goods.

So why single out the oil and gas industry? Because it's profitable?

Because the government singled it out for special benefits and subsidies that other firms don't get.

It's less profitable than other sectors of the economy.

In dollar value, there is no sector more profitable.

And w/re: to the unique tax treatments that do benefit oil and gas, the returns to the government more than offset the preferences. Investment, economic activity, jobs, and increased production.

...ah yes. and here we have it folks - the so-called party of free markets diligently protecting anti-free market policies that help fund the party's leadership.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The current "winners" are oil companies, whose product also has quite large negative externalities associated with it. They "win" to the tune of billions in direct subsidies each year.

Obama is recommending putting an end to that "winning" and so-called Conservatives are busy endlessly justifying the subsidy.

He's just going to transfer the billions to "green energy" initiatives, which will yield ZIPPO.

Which, even if it were true, would yield a better result than subsidizing oil companies. At least green energy initiatives don't come with such significant negative externalities.

These fuckers are DANGEROUS.

Indeed, these fuckers in the oil industry are dangerous.

You're irrational hatred of an industry is childish and amusing...

 

[shintao]

So........................if the gov't stops giving that billions to oil companies, I have two questions:

- Will oil companies raise their gas prices to offset that loss of revenue? (Yes.)

- Will Obama then sign 300,000,000 checks, made out to the American people, and return that billions of dollars to us........which we'll need to buy that higher gas? (No.)



When will lefties learn that private companies and citizens won't just sit there and take a punch with no response in return?

Wouldn't you rather know what the actual price tag is for a gallon of gasoline? Let Big Oil raise their prices so their stock holders don't suffer a loss. That is the free market exercise you want to see from Capitalism.

Why do you ask taxpayers who have no cars to finance your gasoline? Isn't that Socialist?
Are you saying you want welfare handouts from government? Isn't that Socialist??

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The current "winners" are oil companies, whose product also has quite large negative externalities associated with it. They "win" to the tune of billions in direct subsidies each year.

Obama is recommending putting an end to that "winning" and so-called Conservatives are busy endlessly justifying the subsidy.

He's just going to transfer the billions to "green energy" initiatives, which will yield ZIPPO.

Which, even if it were true, would yield a better result than subsidizing oil companies. At least green energy initiatives don't come with such significant negative externalities.

These fuckers are DANGEROUS.

Indeed, these fuckers in the oil industry are dangerous.

Care to address what happens when oil hits 140/barrel? You conveniently glossed over that point.

Thanks for playing!

 

[8537]

He's just going to transfer the billions to "green energy" initiatives, which will yield ZIPPO.

Which, even if it were true, would yield a better result than subsidizing oil companies. At least green energy initiatives don't come with such significant negative externalities.

These fuckers are DANGEROUS.

Indeed, these fuckers in the oil industry are dangerous.

You're irrational hatred of an industry is childish and amusing...

I don't hate any industry. I only hate hypocrites.

Preaching free-markets and defending oil subsidies is hypocrisy.

 

[8537]

He's just going to transfer the billions to "green energy" initiatives, which will yield ZIPPO.

Which, even if it were true, would yield a better result than subsidizing oil companies. At least green energy initiatives don't come with such significant negative externalities.

These fuckers are DANGEROUS.

Indeed, these fuckers in the oil industry are dangerous.

Care to address what happens when oil hits 140/barrel? You conveniently glossed over that point.

Thanks for playing!

Wait a second - we've gone from "they don't really get much in subsidies" to "If we end the subsidies, oil will be $140 per barrel?"

If the market price of oil is $140 per barrel, then when the price reaches $140 per barrel people will substitute out of oil into other more affordable options. We can either plan for that day, or wait around for the market. One way or another, that day is coming because oil is a finite resource.

I'd prefer to plan. China prefers to plan. Conservatives prefer to bury their heads and act like we can just subsidize our way out of it.

 

[shintao]

What good are future revenues if you don't have the financial vehicle today to use in order to assume the risk involved in looking for oil? That's what Obama proposes to do- restructure the tax code only as it pertains to oil and gas exploration and production within the U.S.

Oil prices won't necessarily rise if U.S. production falls. Look at pricing/production graphs for the last 4 decades.

Ah- so that's what it's about, prices at the pump. That's exactly what America looks at when deciding energy policy. The price at the pump. Keep the masses stupid and happy.

Are you saying I should assume the risks involved in looking for oil? That is Socialism isn't it?

And shouldn't you be paying what a gallon of gasoline is worth, instead of asking people who do not drive to subsidize Big Oil and you? When will you take responsibility for your own actions. Buck up dude! Your free ride is over. Capitalism wins.

 

[shintao]

Obama's master plan all along has been to make oil so exhorbitant that it is too expensive for Americans, thereby catapaulting the alt energy industry to the fore.

It will ruin us if he is able to do it.

Ahh, another capitalist gone Socialist on us. Welcome Comrade.

 

[shintao]

The POTUS doesn't have the power to directly change oil cost...but through things like the imposition of stiff penalties, increased taxes at the pump, shutting down production, blocking refineries, and cessation of subsidies, he might as well be.

There are a lot of things a president could do, but then capitalism is about small government, less regulation, no subsidies. We wouldn't want to be accused of being Socialists, would we?

 

[Newby]

Which, even if it were true, would yield a better result than subsidizing oil companies. At least green energy initiatives don't come with such significant negative externalities.



Indeed, these fuckers in the oil industry are dangerous.

Care to address what happens when oil hits 140/barrel? You conveniently glossed over that point.

Thanks for playing!

Wait a second - we've gone from "they don't really get much in subsidies" to "If we end the subsidies, oil will be $140 per barrel?"

If the market price of oil is $140 per barrel, then when the price reaches $140 per barrel people will substitute out of oil into other more affordable options. We can either plan for that day, or wait around for the market. One way or another, that day is coming because oil is a finite resource.

I'd prefer to plan. China prefers to plan. Conservatives prefer to bury their heads and act like we can just subsidize our way out of it.

What other 'affordable option' are you referring too? What can replace what oil currently does today in just about every capacity, and of course, will be more 'friendly' to the environement at the same time?

 

[shintao]

He's just going to transfer the billions to "green energy" initiatives, which will yield ZIPPO.

The man's a rigid ideologue hellbent on imposing his view of "good" on us regardless of reality. And that reality is, as the economy ramps up, we will need more oil... PERIOD. And with stifled production, we will very soon see $140/barrel oil and crash it will go, again.

These fuckers are DANGEROUS.

Perhaps he will build green nuclear plants.

We will need no new oil for years....PERIOD.

But you also sound like a Socialist that wants to subsidize Big Oil with everybody's taxes, even when everybody doesn't drive. Why should they pay for your gasoline?? Pull yourself up by the garterbelt and take personal responsibility for yourself. You are soundng like a welfare queen.

 

[8537]

Care to address what happens when oil hits 140/barrel? You conveniently glossed over that point.

Thanks for playing!

Wait a second - we've gone from "they don't really get much in subsidies" to "If we end the subsidies, oil will be $140 per barrel?"

If the market price of oil is $140 per barrel, then when the price reaches $140 per barrel people will substitute out of oil into other more affordable options. We can either plan for that day, or wait around for the market. One way or another, that day is coming because oil is a finite resource.

I'd prefer to plan. China prefers to plan. Conservatives prefer to bury their heads and act like we can just subsidize our way out of it.

What other 'affordable option' are you referring too? What can replace what oil currently does today in just about every capacity, and of course, will be more 'friendly' to the environement at the same time?

^That's the point. Before oil reaches scarcity and therefore prices that will crush our economy, we need to be researching options. Oil is a finite and increasingly scarce resource. Short of a change in demand, the price will only increase over the long term.

 

[shintao]

Although the "Greenies" find oil offensive, our economy runs on oil; like it or not. There is no switch to be flipped where miraculously we go from oil to windmills overnight. Get real.

Nope, so start hanging the bastards now. Shift our tax dollars to nuclear power plants.

 

[AllieBaba]

Which, even if it were true, would yield a better result than subsidizing oil companies. At least green energy initiatives don't come with such significant negative externalities.



Indeed, these fuckers in the oil industry are dangerous.

Care to address what happens when oil hits 140/barrel? You conveniently glossed over that point.

Thanks for playing!

Wait a second - we've gone from "they don't really get much in subsidies" to "If we end the subsidies, oil will be $140 per barrel?"

If the market price of oil is $140 per barrel, then when the price reaches $140 per barrel people will substitute out of oil into other more affordable options. We can either plan for that day, or wait around for the market. One way or another, that day is coming because oil is a finite resource.

I'd prefer to plan. China prefers to plan. Conservatives prefer to bury their heads and act like we can just subsidize our way out of it.

the "oil is running out" schtick is nothing but a schtick.

And the government has no business forcing anyone to use anything...whether it's insurance or a particular sort of fuel.

BTW, I live out in the sticks; I'm 70 miles from the nearest freeway, have to battle my way across miles and miles of isolated roads where there are no gas stations...electric cars aren't feasible out here.

We're in the middle of windmill country, btw. Windmills can't function without subsidies, did you know that? They can't pay for themselves.

 

[shintao]

the "oil is running out" schtick is nothing but a schtick.

And the government has no business forcing anyone to use anything...whether it's insurance or a particular sort of fuel.

BTW, I live out in the sticks; I'm 70 miles from the nearest freeway, have to battle my way across miles and miles of isolated roads where there are no gas stations...electric cars aren't feasible out here.

We're in the middle of windmill country, btw. Windmills can't function without subsidies, did you know that? They can't pay for themselves.

Government isn't forcing you to buy anything, and it is doing the Capitalist free market system you rally around. I really don't see the problem. You chose to live in the sticks. You chose to buy gasoline. Freedom at last!!

This has been an eye-opening thread, as the chickens come home to roost for capitalists and the real free market exercise.