I guess we will just have to wait a year for a filibuster proof majority to to be sworn in, before we get any real change.

Kick 'em all out.

2008 - TAX THOSE OIL COMPANY BASTIDS! GET THEIR MONEY!
2009 - Hey, how come the price of gasoline went up?

DarthBrooks: 2009 - Hey, how come the price of gasoline went up?

Yeah, like that WOULDN'T happen anyway.

FAIL.

DarthBrooks: 2009 - Hey, how come the price of gasoline went up?

2010 - I love my plug in hybrid that gets 120 miles to a gallon.

DarthBrooks: 2008 - TAX THOSE OIL COMPANY BASTIDS! GET THEIR MONEY!
2009 - Hey, how come the price of gasoline went up?

When they're making record profits why do we need to continue to subsidize them? Also, do you really think reducing subsidies is the same as increasing taxes?

Totalitaryan: 2011 - Massive brownouts as everyone plugs in their smuggy hybrid cars

Infrastructure update----> problem solved...:)

whidbey: Totalitaryan: 2011 - Massive brownouts as everyone plugs in their smuggy hybrid cars

Infrastructure update----> problem solved...:)

Hydroelectrics + geothermal + photovoltaic + wind for the win.

The great thing about electricity is that it's all the same once it's generated; it doesn't matter where it comes from.

/Or, you asshats could drive Accords instead of Escalades

Let's hope that we aren't using coal to power those plugged in cars, but wind, water and sun

Evil Otto: Or, you asshats could drive Accords instead of Escalades

But I need my giant fark off car to fill the gaping hole that is my soul.

Hmmm, pic of Cheney that looks like he has a halo around his head. I sense no bias here at all.

You know, I wish I was gay so I got to fark the Republicans back in the ass.

Great. Another "I'm morally superior because I drive a little car" thread. It's funny how the anti-car guys have become car guys since the hybrids were introduced. It's even funnier when they brag about it. In a few years they'll be just as bad as the Corvette owners.

BobtheFascist: Great. Another "I'm morally superior because I drive a little car" thread.

Funny, I thought it was about how Congress screwed up and failed to stand up to the big oil companies...

Sdecker: When they're making record profits why do we need to continue to subsidize them? Also, do you really think reducing subsidies is the same as increasing taxes?

The "incentives" are reduced taxing on "alternative energy" research, the religious icon of the left which will supposedly replace foreign oil in a few years if we'd only study it a bit and build magic energy-making boxes to plug in our Prius Mark 2s.

The government isn't writing them checks. "Subsidy" is being used with the preconception that the government deserves all of business income and it's only the largess of the federal government that permits any company or anyone to retain their earnings.

If taxes go up, where do you think the money to pay for those taxes will come from? These are publicly-traded companies, so their responsibility is to make a return on their shareholders' investments. There's no giant roomful of chalices and gold plates behind a door marked "Record Profits Treasure Room". The money comes in, and it goes out in new purchases of equipment, dividends, salaries, and corporate acquisitions.

Additional costs are covered by -- who, class? - - THE CONSUMER.

If you have a cell phone bill, go look at the line where is says "tax surcharge". That's a company, passing the increased government tax bill on to YOU. It doesn't crimp the income of the company - -it just raises the taxes on the end-user. Just as increased taxes will be passed on to the gasoline consumer.

DarthBrooks: The "incentives" are reduced taxing on "alternative energy" research, the religious icon of the left which will supposedly replace foreign oil in a few years if we'd only study it a bit and build magic energy-making boxes to plug in our Prius Mark 2s.

Which is akin to having the fox guard the henhouse. No thanks.

If taxes go up, where do you think the money to pay for those taxes will come from? These are publicly-traded companies, so their responsibility is to make a return on their shareholders' investments.

Reduced salaries for executives and the complete disappearance of the absurd and appalling "golden parachute"--use their insane profits for these kinds of luxuries, not taxpayer dollars.

Unacceptable. They've made outrageous profits for years, award that research to smaller non-corporate outfits. For once.

Additional costs are covered by -- who, class? - - THE CONSUMER.

This also has to stop. It's really about time that bloated, already too-rich corporations learn to live with less, or cut their losses starting at the top. And yes, it will take regulation to make this a reality because they sure as sh*t aren't going to police themselves...:)

I seem to recall the economy doing great with higher taxes under Bill Clinton. No national debt, bills were paid, the dollar was worth a lot more and everyone was making money and having a great time.

Ah the good old days.

Hard to believe that was just 7 years ago.

Republican filibuster? Nonsense. Only filthy evil Democrat Party members subvert democracy by filibustering. Republicans would certainly demand a straight up-and-down vote. So stop lying, Washington Post, submitter, CSPAN, and Congressional record!

The American Petroleum Institute issued a statement saying: "We applaud the Senate for recognizing the adverse effect that increased taxes would have had on future energy supplies."

Translated: "We've got you by the balls. Don't fark with us."

Regarding the increased taxes bing passed on to the consumer: That's the farking point. Subsidizing oil just perpetuates the dependence. Subsidizing more and more as it becomes scarcer and scarcer is only backing yourself into a corner. The free-market folks say that the the market will take care of replacing gasoline. I don't have as much confidence, but why not get rid of the subsidies and let the market work?

Wind and solar deserve subsidies because they are better for the environment. If more subsidies were given to environmentally-friendly technologies, maybe our water and air quality wouldn't be going down the shiatter at such an incredible rate.

pnjunction: If more subsidies were given to environmentally-friendly technologies

I should say that penalties to environmentally-destructive technologies would work just as well. The bottom line is that the environment for the most part is an externality that is generally taken advantage of to the full extent the law permits because it doesn't cost anything to do so.

there is no alternative capable of providing the amount of energy we need today as efficiently as oil/gas/coal does. until the time comes when there is a realistic alternative we need to do everything we can to protect what energy assets we do have. i hate subsidies to any company though, especially to eco-friendly ones because the market for other energy is wide open to all possibilities, i'd rather have the marketplace pick a winner, not the government. we're smart enough to decide which alternative is the safest, cleanest, and most efficient. leave the government out of it so it can do what government is supposed to be doing.

DarthBrooks: The "incentives" are reduced taxing on "alternative energy" research, the religious icon of the left which will supposedly replace foreign oil in a few years if we'd only study it a bit and build magic energy-making boxes to plug in our Prius Mark 2s.

Of course! All our problems will be solved if we just keep giving money to them while they promise to try to fix things and hold them to the honor system.



That's the number of patents filed for sulfur dioxide controlling devices in power plants each year.

Born2late: I seem to recall the economy doing great with higher taxes under Bill Clinton. No national debt, bills were paid, the dollar was worth a lot more and everyone was making money and having a great time.

Ah the good old days.

Hard to believe that was just 7 years ago.

Comrade438: Born2late: I seem to recall the economy doing great with higher taxes under Bill Clinton. No national debt, bills were paid, the dollar was worth a lot more and everyone was making money and having a great time.

Ah the good old days.

Hard to believe that was just 7 years ago.

actually about 8 or 9 years ago, the economy went sour early in 2000

DarthBrooks: If you have a cell phone bill, go look at the line where is says "tax surcharge". That's a company, passing the increased government tax bill on to YOU. It doesn't crimp the income of the company - -it just raises the taxes on the end-user. Just as increased taxes will be passed on to the gasoline consumer.

So what if gas prices go up, so long as your tax burden goes down? You can choose to burn less gas (and if you don't, you've no one but yourself to blame). You can't choose to pay less in taxes.

Elasticity of demand motherfarker. Learn it.

Howdy folks, I'm a big epimethean, oil and coal loving Conservative douche-bag and just like terrorism, or issues of eroding national infrastructure I prefer to just react to things when they explode in my face as opposed to being proactive in any way.. Because progress is for liberals.. and they hate Jesus unlike the salt of the earth at Exxon.

/I drive an Escalade to feel safe.
//AHH THE ROAD IS ATTACKING ME!!!

///Why are most republicans evil, corrupt dirtbags?

Why is it that the free market is fine and dandy when someone wants to start regulating, but when you talk about taking away a bonus you give to one industry over others it's suddenly going to break the market?

Seriously, I'm beginning to think that Republicans will vote against anything if they thought the Democrats came up with it first. Why should we be 'bailing out' these huge multinational corporations that are making record profits?

If you've got your panties in a pinch about 'raising their taxes' argue that everyone's taxes should be lowered EQUALLY. This favoritism shiat is bogus.

Poopspasm: DarthBrooks: If you have a cell phone bill, go look at the line where is says "tax surcharge". That's a company, passing the increased government tax bill on to YOU. It doesn't crimp the income of the company - -it just raises the taxes on the end-user. Just as increased taxes will be passed on to the gasoline consumer.

So what if gas prices go up, so long as your tax burden goes down? You can choose to burn less gas (and if you don't, you've no one but yourself to blame). You can't choose to pay less in taxes.

Elasticity of demand motherfarker. Learn it.

Or, you could donate millions to political campaigns and buy a party to lower your taxes for you, and give you billions of dollars of other people's money!

Brilliant!

Tomorrow on Fox: "Democratic congress again fails to pass bill calling for renewable energy"

Deneb81:
Seriously, I'm beginning to think that Republicans will vote against anything if they thought the Democrats came up with it first. Why should we be 'bailing out' these huge multinational corporations that are making record profits?


come on now, spread the love... democrats would do the same to any republican idea.

we're not "bailing them out". and if those evil companies that made money didnt exist, you wouldnt recognize your world right now filled with the luxuries that oil and petroleum products produce

014789: actually about 8 or 9 years ago, the economy went sour early in 2000

Can I get another fail, please? Five and a half trillion dollars in the red isn't the absence of a national debt.

014789: we're not "bailing them out". and if those evil companies that made money didnt exist, you wouldnt recognize your world right now filled with the luxuries that oil and petroleum products produce

If the libs had their way there never would have been an Industrial Revolution.

Deneb81: If you've got your panties in a pinch about 'raising their taxes' argue that everyone's taxes should be lowered EQUALLY. This favoritism shiat is bogus.

The Internal Revenue Code includes a helluva lot of social and welfare programs (mortgage deduction, student loan deduction, domestic manufacturing credit, etc.). Encouraging oil companies to invest in alternative energy probably sounded like a good idea to some Congressman at some point. Implementing the incentive through the tax code is often the politically easy way to do it.

There will never come a time when all the welfare and social programs are uniformly removed from the IRC. People like their hybrid vehicle credits.

Comrade438: 014789: actually about 8 or 9 years ago, the economy went sour early in 2000

Can I get another fail, please? Five and a half trillion dollars in the red isn't the absence of a national debt.

debt isnt necessarily a bad thing.

FuriousGeorge945: If the libs had their way there never would have been an Industrial Revolution.

Yes, because recognizing when subsidies are no longer important to support an industry is exactly like opposing the Industrial Revolution. You farking moron.

FuriousGeorge945: 014789: we're not "bailing them out". and if those evil companies that made money didnt exist, you wouldnt recognize your world right now filled with the luxuries that oil and petroleum products produce

If the libs had their way there never would have been an Industrial Revolution.

true that

Poopspasm: FuriousGeorge945: If the libs had their way there never would have been an Industrial Revolution.

Yes, because recognizing when subsidies are no longer important to support an industry is exactly like opposing the Industrial Revolution. You farking moron.

i think hes talking about the pollution aspect

Poopspasm: Yes, because recognizing when subsidies are no longer important to support an industry is exactly like opposing the Industrial Revolution. You farking moron.

Damn, I thought using 'libs' would be enough to indicate my statement was drowning in sarcasm.

014789
debt isnt necessarily a bad thing.

Goddamnit for a government YES IT IS.

FuriousGeorge945: Damn, I thought using 'libs' would be enough to indicate my statement was drowning in sarcasm.

Ah, I see. My apologies.

014789: Poopspasm: FuriousGeorge945: If the libs had their way there never would have been an Industrial Revolution.

Yes, because recognizing when subsidies are no longer important to support an industry is exactly like opposing the Industrial Revolution. You farking moron.

i think hes talking about the pollution aspect

and the 50's would have been lack luster because they oppose any kind of urban sprawl

Great Caesar's Toast: 014789
debt isnt necessarily a bad thing.

Goddamnit for a government YES IT IS.

ok, whatever dude...youre done

Great Caesar's Toast: Goddamnit for a government YES IT IS.

No, it's really not. He's quite right about that.

That said, debt at our current level is absolutely horrible. The two trainwrecks of fiscal management named "Reagan" and "Dubya" got us where we are today.

014789
ok, whatever dude...youre done

Hurr hurr ok dude

014789: FuriousGeorge945: 014789: we're not "bailing them out". and if those evil companies that made money didnt exist, you wouldnt recognize your world right now filled with the luxuries that oil and petroleum products produce

If the libs had their way there never would have been an Industrial Revolution.

true that

yeah, cause that industrial revolution worked out great for the billions exploited by the few hundred in power...

Poopspasm
No, it's really not. He's quite right about that.

Yes, it really is. The government already has a way to raise whatever operating capital it needs, through taxes. The ONLY thing that governments running in the red achieves is to hide the true cost to taxpayers, reduce the value you get per tax dollar and allow for runaway fiscal irresponsibility.

It's the government, not a fortune 500 company, they don't need to leverage themselves to gain a foothold in new markets or research new products to stay competitive, the government has no competition.

I take that back, it's OK for governments to borrow money to fund emergency needs, but only to get them to the next tax collection, then it needs to be paid back.

It's funny, where did all the talk of "up or down" votes go?

Poopspasm: Great Caesar's Toast: Goddamnit for a government YES IT IS.

No, it's really not. He's quite right about that.

That said, debt at our current level is absolutely horrible. The two trainwrecks of fiscal management named "Reagan" and "Dubya" got us where we are today.

Simply amazing since there 2 presidents and 3 terms dividing the two.

Great Caesar's Toast: Yes, it really is. The government already has a way to raise whatever operating capital it needs, through taxes. The ONLY thing that governments running in the red achieves is to hide the true cost to taxpayers, reduce the value you get per tax dollar and allow for runaway fiscal irresponsibility.

Two words: revenue maximization. If they can apply funds to an end that would grow the economy, then they will collect more revenue in perpetuity.

Interstate highways are one of those things worth financing with debt. And so on.

It isn't as simple as just raising or lowering the tax rate. When you have the ability to modify the revenue base from which you draw taxes, there's sometimes a compelling reason to prefer debt.

You already covered the "emergenc" scenario, but the above still applies.

Aeonic_Blue: 014789: FuriousGeorge945: 014789: we're not "bailing them out". and if those evil companies that made money didnt exist, you wouldnt recognize your world right now filled with the luxuries that oil and petroleum products produce

If the libs had their way there never would have been an Industrial Revolution.

true that

yeah, cause that industrial revolution worked out great for the billions exploited by the few hundred in power...

wow, get over it man. you'd give back all of the advances made from 1890-1910 in order to save exploited workers?