End fossil fuel welfare handouts paid for by taxpayers

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

I may be wrong but I think his point is they will get it from your tax dollars and if they eliminate that they will get it directly from you at the pump. Just think of it like everything else Lose/Lose for us.

I'd rather end the subsidies, and see them pass it on at the pump. That is the entire point of the article. It will even out the US market and show the propped-up oil industries for what they are.

The oil industry in the US has been an untenable bloated welfare recipient for decades now. They are getting bilions and billions of dollars from us. We're broke. It's time the welfare handouts to Big Oil stopped.

For the first time, we're a net exporter of oil. Time we used that cushion to wean the dependent off government subsidies, and allow the entire energy market to flourish.

Oh - and our pollution to decrease.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Well his own Energy Secretary said he didn't understand why we weren't paying 9.00 a gallon for gas like in Europe, so it stands to reason that it sits well with you too.

As a consumer, you at least have control over these subsidies as they come back directly to you - that is the whole point of them. Without it, this entire country would stop.

What do you the the gubment is going to do with your money when they aren't giving it to Big Oil? Give it back to you? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Well his own Energy Secretary said he didn't understand why we weren't paying 9.00 a gallon for gas like in Europe, so it stands to reason that it sits well with you too.

No, that's not what Chu said.

As a consumer, you at least have control over these subsidies as they come back directly to you - that is the whole point of them. Without it, this entire country would stop.

No, these subsides do not "come back to me" in cost lowering at the pump, they go into massive profit for the oil companies.

What do you the the gubment is going to do with your money when they aren't giving it to Big Oil? Give it back to you? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Nope. Use it to pay down our massive deficit, caused by all these free government welfare handouts to record-profitable companies that pay little to no tax.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, that's not what Chu said.



No, these subsides do not "come back to me" in cost lowering at the pump, they go into massive profit for the oil companies.



Nope. Use it to pay down our massive deficit, caused by all these free government welfare handouts to record-profitable companies that pay little to no tax.

Shortly before he became President Barack Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu declared, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" -- which were around $8 per gallon at the time.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html

You sure about that?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Clip, don't get sucked into her vortex of idiocy.

She'll just deny the facts and/or spend 5 pages posting about how she didn't say what she clearly said.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Clip, don't get sucked into her vortex of idiocy.

She'll just deny the facts and/or spend 5 pages posting about how she didn't say what she clearly said.

Been there many times, usually end the debate saying something like, "logic, reason or math are not welcome in these discussions" and stop posting.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Clip, don't get sucked into her vortex of idiocy.

She'll just deny the facts and/or spend 5 pages posting about how she didn't say what she clearly said.

Because quoting the entire quote accurately, in context, isn't the same as what right wing websites said Chu said

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because quoting the entire quote accurately, in context, isn't the same as what right wing websites said Chu said

Feel free to do so, this way everyone will know what he meant.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Clip, don't get sucked into her vortex of idiocy.

She'll just deny the facts and/or spend 5 pages posting about how she didn't say what she clearly said.

[Clip-Clop]

http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB...307499791.html

How about this one?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB...307499791.html

How about this one?

Can you quote the part where Chu "didn't understand why we weren't paying 9.00 a gallon for gas like in Europe" ?

As I said: that's not what Chu said.

Does anybody have any evidence that removing billions in taxpayer subsidies will cause the richest and most profitable corporation in the US (Exxon), and it's four biggest competitors to raise gasoline to $9 a liter? Especially when our oil is still bought and sold on the world market, and only the largest five gasoline companies, and not the smaller US ones, would be affected?

Not to mention the billions that would flow into our taxpayer pockets to pay off our deficit. Which is the whole point.

Being held hostage by private companies doesn't seem to be a very smart thing for the American taxpayer. We should stop that, no?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Can you quote the part where Chu "didn't understand why we weren't paying 9.00 a gallon for gas like in Europe" ?

As I said: that's not what Chu said.

Does anybody have any evidence that removing billions in taxpayer subsidies will cause the richest and most profitable corporation in the US (Exxon), and it's four biggest competitors to raise gasoline to $9 a liter? Especially when our oil is still bought and sold on the world market, and only the largest five gasoline companies, and not the smaller US ones, would be affected?

Being held hostage by private companies doesn't seem to be a very smart thing for the American taxpayer.

It was never presented as a quote, more of a summation. The quotes I have provided support that summation completely based on the cost of gasoline at the time of the WSJ interview with Chu.

Being held hostage by the federal gov't sounds better?

I would rather the gas/oil companies have that money than DC. It is more likely to find a way into the economy in the hands of a successful business.