If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   $3.4 billion annually in tax preferences to "Big Oil": A horrible drain on the federal treasury that should be investigated. $24 billion IN ONE YEAR to "Green Industries": Nothing to see here, Mr. Taxpayer   (redstate.com) divider line 186
    More: Obvious, force of law, storm drain, energy technologies, treasurys, forms of energy, John Thune, Charlotte Observer, Sierra Club  
•       •       •

825 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2012 at 4:35 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-08 06:56:41 PM
Is that supposed to make me angry? Because it actually makes me happy. That's how we SHOULD be spending our money.
 
2012-03-08 06:59:20 PM

kyrg: Those of you so willing to spend my money on a technology that has yet to be proven to be an economical choice vs oil and gas, a technology that China can supply componets for far cheaper than the US


So I suppose we should just concede to China then.

You ain't no American.
 
2012-03-08 07:04:28 PM

stebain: HotWingConspiracy: BIG NUMBERS

That's Numberwang!!

[www.ukgameshows.com image 350x194]


Everything is numberwang!
 
2012-03-08 07:06:18 PM

Lando Lincoln: How many times do I have to tell you? I know there's a difference between gasoline and oil.



Lando Lincoln: Philip Francis Queeg: Oil is not the only fossil fuel.

What percentage of vehicles operate on things other than oil?


You thought Cars ran on oil not "Fossil fuels" which Gas is one.

You also said Natural Gas had nothing to do with Gasoline and then said you knew it did later. You're full of crap!
 
2012-03-08 07:13:02 PM

Lando Lincoln: Gallons of gas consumed in US in 2010 = 137,760,000,000

Barrels of oil produced daily in the US in 2010 = 7,513,000

Multiply daily barrels by 365 and you get 2,742,245,000 barrels for the whole year

Multiply the total barrels by 19 (19 gallons of gas for each barrel of oil) and you come up with 52,102,655,000

52 billion gallons of gas produced is smaller than 137 billion gallons of gas consumed, so therefore we do not create as much oil as we personally consume as a nation in relation to gasoline.


That has NOTHING to do with my point.

Yes we import oil- I NEVER SAID WE DID NOT IMPORT OIL!! You keep pretending that's what I said.
You said I was wrong that we are a net exporter of fossil fuels. You didn't know the difference between the two. And then your pretended cars run on oil instead of gas.


You ignored it last time but lets try again:

How would if the US made all of it's own oil but then still exported all the gas it created gas prices would go down or give us "energy Independence"??
 
2012-03-08 07:16:10 PM

Lando Lincoln: In which we make only 1/3 of what we currently consume in this country.


I love how you think this is an important stat but leave out we get close to 80% from north America. I think we are not going to go to war with either of them soon.

Also like I previously shown OIL and GAS are commodities that are sold on the world market so it doesn't farking matter much where it is produced.
 
2012-03-08 07:25:07 PM

Lando Lincoln: [pretending I said we don't have an oil shortage]


Here lets make it simple for you:

Lets say I make cookies.

Lets say to make cookies I need 5 lbs of flower a day to make 100 cookies. Lets say I only make 3 pounds of flower on my own. So I have to buy 2 lbs of flower each day at the store.

I make 100 cookies a day. My kids eat 80 cookies a day HOWEVER I sell 30 cookies a day to my neighbor.

You are saying I have a shortage of cookies here!! That's bullshiat!!!
 
2012-03-08 07:26:35 PM

Corvus: Lando Lincoln: [pretending I said we don't have an oil shortage]

Here lets make it simple for you:

Lets say I make cookies.

Lets say to make cookies I need 5 lbs of flower a day to make 100 cookies. Lets say I only make 3 pounds of flower on my own. So I have to buy 2 lbs of flower each day at the store.

I make 100 cookies a day. My kids eat 80 cookies a day HOWEVER I sell 30 cookies a day to my neighbor.

You are saying I have a shortage of cookies here!! That's bullshiat!!!


Oh plus I take much of the other flour to turn into non-cookie petroleum products to sell overseas.
 
2012-03-08 07:32:25 PM
Corvus, could you at least make some alts so that it *looks* like other people are saying anything in this thread?
 
2012-03-08 07:43:42 PM

Aarontology: There's a difference between loans and direct subsidization.


Not when the company bankrupts. Oil subsidies, what a retarded thing to all them as tax incentives are not subsidies, are across multiple industries. Profit margins in oil are under 4%. How come you are not up in arms about apple?
 
2012-03-08 07:45:01 PM

ShawnDoc: Big difference between subsidizing hugely profitable and well established companies, and subsidizing struggling startups working on creating new technology that will be required in the not so distant future if we want America to remain competitive in the global economy.


Are liberals too stupid to understand how to normalize data?
 
2012-03-08 07:46:04 PM

Nadie_AZ: Does this include ethanol subsidies? The idea of burning your food for fuel never sat well with me.

I firmly believe in education and research and development. Subs wouldn't be posting on the internet if people in Government 50 years ago didn't believe in this as well.


Those green energy subsidies.... Very little goes to education or r and d. It's going to private companies.
 
2012-03-08 07:53:29 PM
Also - refining gasoline from crude does not require natural gas. We happen to use it since it's a cheap and easy energy source of heating, but you could use wood or something if you really wanted to.

We do have quite a bit of natural gas and coal, but those are generally not easy drop in replacements for oil.

And just because we refine more petroleum products than we use internally, does not mean that we are energy independant. It means that we're importing slightly more crude than we actually need to be, and are then processing it an exporting it again for a profit this year. If we were to stop doing that, our imports would drop a bit, but we'd still be importing a farkton of crude since we do not make enough to cover our own demand.
 
2012-03-08 08:00:13 PM

MyRandomName: Aarontology: There's a difference between loans and direct subsidization.

Not when the company bankrupts. Oil subsidies, what a retarded thing to all them as tax incentives are not subsidies, are across multiple industries. Profit margins in oil are under 4%. How come you are not up in arms about apple?


Well for one Apple doesn't get iPod from US iPod reserves that belong to all the American people.

Also the comment about "are across multiple industries." is not true many subsidize that oil companies get a very specific for only them.
 
2012-03-08 08:08:32 PM

seanpg71: Also - refining gasoline from crude does not require natural gas.


Never said it did. But someone else did say that Natural gas has nothing to do with Gas.

seanpg71: We do have quite a bit of natural gas and coal, but those are generally not easy drop in replacements for oil.


Never said It could be. However my point is that GAS is a good substitute for GAS.

seanpg71: And just because we refine more petroleum products than we use internally, does not mean that we are energy independant. It means that we're importing slightly more crude than we actually need to be, and are then processing it an exporting it again for a profit this year. If we were to stop doing that, our imports would drop a bit, but we'd still be importing a farkton of crude since we do not make enough to cover our own demand.


People say I repeat too much but then people seem to never read what I actually write. I am not saying we don't import oil. I am saying it doesn't make any difference if we did. We make a lot of gas now. We export that gas.

We could have oil up to our knees but if we then turn around and export all the gas we make out of it to other countries it doesn't mean shiat.

I am assuming you were talking to me, but all the arguments you are making have nothing to do with my points. That seems like what you and Lando Lincoln like to do. Keep pretending people are making a point that they are not actually making so you can ignore that actual real point.

We have lots of gas. As long as we export a lot of gas no matter how much oil we produce will make any difference.
 
2012-03-08 08:09:41 PM

Corvus: That has NOTHING to do with my point.


I don't know what your point is anymore. I think I'm suffering from bold type overload.

My point is, we don't create as much oil as we use in our country. And without that, we are not energy independent, due to the fact that our modern society is so incredibly dependent on products that come from oil.

Yes we import oil- I NEVER SAID WE DID NOT IMPORT OIL!! You keep pretending that's what I said.

You said I was wrong that we are a net exporter of fossil fuels. You didn't know the difference between the two. And then your pretended cars run on oil instead of gas.


We are a net exporter of fossil fuel derivatives. There is a difference. Your numbers also include things like natural gas, and while natural gas is an important energy source, compared to crude oil it's not very important at all.

And you are being pedantic with this harping on me saying that "cars don't run on oil." Cars most certainly do "run" on oil. The vast majority of them burn gasoline or diesel, which are oil derivatives. Much of their bodies are made of plastic, which is an oil derivative. They are painted with paint, which is largely an oil derivative. The parts to make them are shipped using oil derivatives. Without oil, cars couldn't even be made, much less "run."

You ignored it last time but lets try again:

How would if the US made all of it's own oil but then still exported all the gas it created gas prices would go down or give us "energy Independence"??


That sentence makes no sense to me. Let me try to translate that into English. I understand that you're really hot on this topic, so I forgive you for typing too fast for your own thoughts.

"If the US produced all of its own oil (IE, did not import any oil from outside countries), but we exported all of the gasoline that we made from that oil, how would gasoline prices go down or give us 'energy independence?'"

Well, you got me. I have no idea how exporting gasoline gives us energy independence. Normally I think of "energy independence" as "producing as much energy as you use without depending on outside sources of energy." And we CONSUME (as in, 'personally use,' not 'partially use, but then process more and then sell that extra to other people') more oil than we produce. Oil is by far the most important energy on the planet, so I really don't care that much about other sources of energy at this point in time. Which is part of your "net fossil fuel exports."

But you wanted to talk about gasoline, so let's continue this discussion about gasoline.

We as a nation produce X amount of barrels of oil a year.
X times 19 equals the total amount of gallons of gasoline that we could produce from those barrels of oil, if we did nothing else with that oil.
That new number is way less than the amount of gasoline that we personally CONSUME, not 'partially consume and sell the rest' in a year as a nation.
Therefore, if we did not import a LOT of oil every year, we'd have severe gasoline shortages in our own country. And therefore, we're dangerously exposed in terms of 'energy independence.'

Now, you tell me why your factoid of "the US is a net fossil fuel exporter" is important, if we do not have the capability of making enough oil to supply our own gasoline needs, let alone our gasoline and diesel and plastics needs.
 
2012-03-08 08:11:07 PM

MyRandomName: Profit margins in oil are under 4%.


You should tell Exxon Mobile that. They need a good laugh.
 
2012-03-08 08:18:52 PM

Corvus: I love how you think this is an important stat but leave out we get close to 80% from north America. I think we are not going to go to war with either of them soon.


I don't rightly give a shiat if we get a lot of our oil from Canada and Mexico. Canada and Mexico is not the United States. All I care about is the United States and our own energy independence.

Corvus: We have lots of gas. As long as we export a lot of gas no matter how much oil we produce will make any difference.


We have lots of gas only if we can continue to import oil. Without that import of oil, we would have severe gas shortages. So your whole idea of "as long as we're selling tons of gas every year then everything is just fine and dandy!" just doesn't help me feel any better.
 
2012-03-08 08:32:27 PM

Lando Lincoln: kyrg: Those of you so willing to spend my money on a technology that has yet to be proven to be an economical choice vs oil and gas, a technology that China can supply componets for far cheaper than the US

So I suppose we should just concede to China then.

You ain't no American.


Way too late on that dude. China owns us already. We need to wean ourselves from the " I still have checks so I must have the money" spending mentallty, then we'd have plenty of money to throw down the solar hole.
 
2012-03-08 08:39:38 PM

kyrg: Way too late on that dude. China owns us already. We need to wean ourselves from the " I still have checks so I must have the money" spending mentallty, then we'd have plenty of money to throw down the solar hole.


Well, you can be a goddamn sissy defeatist if YOU like, but us Real Americans ain't yet begun to fight.
 
2012-03-08 08:42:47 PM

o5iiawah: It is a good thing we have the federal government subsidizing Chevy volts, else there would be absolutely no alternatives


Yep it's terrible that the Fed had to create that whole Internet thing that you're posting on to biatch about the government.
 
2012-03-08 08:42:53 PM

Fart_Machine: MyRandomName: Profit margins in oil are under 4%.

You should tell Exxon Mobile that. They need a good laugh.


How can you tell where the profit came from?

How much is from its chemical division...how much is from its exploration and production of natural gas...how much is from refining oil into something else....how much is from exploration and production of oil.

Wal-mart makes decent profit......but it all doesn't originate from sales of effeminate cheerleader ankle socks that alot of males tend to wear today.
 
2012-03-08 09:30:53 PM

maxheck: o5iiawah:

Ayn Rand's Social Worker: Both of which total less than 5% of what China is spending on them. But you'd rather we become a vassal state to the Chinese after we're done propping up the house of Saud and Hugo Chavez?

Go live in china if you want to have state-controlled everything.

Wow...

Just... Wow.


So in order to compete with China's green energy program, we borrow money from them. We're going to be their vassal some day and it isn't because their government scientists beat ours in a solar development contest.

$16.5Tn in debt.
 
2012-03-08 10:28:34 PM

Lost Thought 00: Oil companies are the most profitable businesses in the history of humanity

Green industries have problems with slow adoption and economies of scale, but have great growth potential if they can get a foothold in the market.

One of these deserves subsidies, the other doesn't


None of them deserve subsidies. If oil and coal energy prices go up because they no longer get subsidies, that will start a larger market push for greener off-the-grid energies.

Our national energy policies, historically speaking, have lost billions of dollars and have a very unconvincing success rate. That's because Congress is relatively clueless and corrupt.

You'll come to find many of Obama's green energy loan recipients were donors to his campaign too. Hmmmmm.
 
2012-03-08 10:35:21 PM

Deftoons: You'll come to find many of Obama's green energy loan recipients were donors to his campaign too. Hmmmmm.


Wait, you mean the guys who are invested in green energy are going to back the party who supports it? Inconceivable!

o5iiawah: So in order to compete with China's green energy program, we borrow money from them. We're going to be their vassal some day and it isn't because their government scientists beat ours in a solar development contest.


Yes the entire reason we have a trade deficit with China is because of solar energy research. It wouldn't have anything to do with their cheap manufacturing base which our major corporations sold out to.
 
2012-03-08 11:17:15 PM

Fart_Machine: Deftoons: You'll come to find many of Obama's green energy loan recipients were donors to his campaign too. Hmmmmm.

Wait, you mean the guys who are invested in green energy are going to back the party who supports it? Inconceivable!

o5iiawah: So in order to compete with China's green energy program, we borrow money from them. We're going to be their vassal some day and it isn't because their government scientists beat ours in a solar development contest.

Yes the entire reason we have a trade deficit with China is because of solar energy research. It wouldn't have anything to do with their cheap manufacturing base which our major corporations sold out to.


Or the refusal to raise taxes/cut deductions.

Or China's currency manipulation.

Or China's housing bubble.

Or their terrible environmental policy that is already biting them in the ass.

Or the drying up of American purchasing power.

Or the cost of energy in our delightfully energy-inefficient nation.

Nope, it's all because of the damn HIPPIES and their little green-loving green energy!
 
2012-03-09 03:30:08 AM

lexslamman: One pollutes and funnels American dollars to countries who don't like us.

The other doesn't pollutes differently and promotes home-grown entrepreneurship.


Don't fool yourself. Making solar panels is nasty business. The waste chemicals are dangerous and should be handled with care. Except most solar panels are made in China were environmental laws are ignored. As for home-grown businesses, you mean like Solyndra? Yeah, that worked out great.

As for wind. I live near a large wind farm. It wasn't cost effective even though the location was specifically chosen for it's near constant wind. Over the years they've stopped bothering with repairing the windmills. Or as the environmentalists call them, "bird choppers". Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Battery driven cars? Same problem in manufacturing as solar panels. Plus, how do you charge them? You plug them in. Where does most of that energy come from? Mostly coal plants in this country, though that varies by state. And given the very limited range of a battery vehicle and the excessively long recharge time, it could only be considered a secondary vehicle. At their high cost, not exactly an option for most families.

Biofuel is a damn stupid idea unless they can efficiently convert the waste material, which shows great promise. Now here's something I wouldn't mind the government tossing some money into.

I do agree, however, that research must be encouraged. I would prefer, however, that the government not throw money at dubious businesses merely to gain short term political points (again, Solyndra).
 
2012-03-09 06:01:28 AM
Lets see... $24 billion that is invested in researching new and improved technology in a fledgling field. Of course any product that comes from this will lead to more manufacturing jobs as well. The long-term payback is that eventually we get lots of very cheap energy (which WILL drive down your utility bill and gas prices).

Vs... $3.4 billion that does NOTHING but pad a well established, cash-rich company's bottom line. We pay for a "service" that they will do anyways - with or without taxpayer funded welfare - and receive not so much as stock in return. If they NEED capital to invest in anything(and they don't), they should be using the markets to secure this capital. That is why Wall Street exists!

So you have the so called "socialists" advocating that the oil industry adhere to Capitalist business practices, and the other side demanding socialist redistribution to the oil companies. Surely this ironic hypocrisy has NOTHING to do with the huge bribes free speech contributions that oil companies make to these corrupt politicians moral upright statesmen...

What is the argument - that if we take away their WELFARE, then our gas prices will increase? Well there is no supporting proof of this. They sell it for whatever they can get it for - always have and always will. The market dictates price and will continue to do so. Its called Capitalism, people.

But suppose that argument held water. If they passed on their "loss," how much would the gas increase? Obviously no more than to cover the "income" (aka welfare) they lost. We are paying for it now via taxes, and so we would instead pay for it at the pump. Well... so what?

Either way, we clearly are paying for it and would (at worst) be no worse off. At best though, we would be off the hook for $3.4 Billion that is absolutely wasted. Use it to lower the deficit a bit, or if nothing else give the money to NASA(the single biggest government SUCCESS ever) or other scientific research.

...or buy everyone in America a foot long sandwich from Subway.
 
2012-03-09 08:21:11 AM

OgreMagi: Don't fool yourself


Taking a break from my self imposed silence to say that after reading your post and your profile, I must warn you that people with your intelligence and common sense are not allowed on Fark. I don't know that I saw a single poster that knows what a "subsidy" is.
 
2012-03-09 09:10:52 AM

Fart_Machine: Deftoons: You'll come to find many of Obama's green energy loan recipients were donors to his campaign too. Hmmmmm.

Wait, you mean the guys who are invested in green energy are going to back the party who supports it? Inconceivable!


Yay corruption!
 
2012-03-09 12:07:20 PM
DarwiOdrade

These are loan guarantees, right, not actual loans?

/not clicking a red state link



You're so brave. Then don't comment in the thread.
 
2012-03-09 01:03:40 PM

Deftoons: Fart_Machine: Deftoons: You'll come to find many of Obama's green energy loan recipients were donors to his campaign too. Hmmmmm.

Wait, you mean the guys who are invested in green energy are going to back the party who supports it? Inconceivable!

Yay corruption!


If you're arguing for getting all money out of politics, I'm with you.

If you're not, then I'm afraid you don't have much of a point. Green energy companies giving to Republicans would make about as much sense as the Creation Museum giving to Democrats.
 
2012-03-09 02:26:49 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: OgreMagi: Don't fool yourself

Taking a break from my self imposed silence to say that after reading your post and your profile, I must warn you that people with your intelligence and common sense are not allowed on Fark. I don't know that I saw a single poster that knows what a "subsidy" is.


Damn it. This isn't Nam. There are rules. You're supposed to call me a mouth-breathing Rush fan-boy, not compliment me. I'm fairly certain you have violated Fark's terms of service.
 
2012-03-09 06:01:31 PM
Always nice to come to fark and see how people living one level up from dirt hovels frame the national narrative.
 
2012-03-09 08:20:48 PM

Lost Thought 00: Oil companies are the most profitable businesses in the history of humanity


Not true. Illegal drugs are bigger. And no taxes, plus massive government programs to inflate profits.
 
2012-03-09 11:26:08 PM

OgreMagi: Dancin_In_Anson: OgreMagi: Don't fool yourself

Taking a break from my self imposed silence to say that after reading your post and your profile, I must warn you that people with your intelligence and common sense are not allowed on Fark. I don't know that I saw a single poster that knows what a "subsidy" is.

Damn it. This isn't Nam. There are rules. You're supposed to call me a mouth-breathing Rush fan-boy, not compliment me. I'm fairly certain you have violated Fark's terms of service.


Yes, yes, we get it. You two are the only sane voices in a cage of howling librul monkeys. Go get a room.
 
Displayed 36 of 186 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report