End fossil fuel welfare handouts paid for by taxpayers

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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

Nope. It's up to the people making the "quote" as part of their argument to get it right. That would be you and Rude.

Rude said Chu said, "he didn't understand why we weren't paying 9.00 a gallon for gas like in Europe".

You said, "Steven Chu declared, 'Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe'."

So Rude says the energy secretary can't understand how the market works, and you say the energy secretary wants gasoline prices to skyrocket.

If you guys want to use the man's words as part of your argument, I'd suggest you quote his words accurately and in context.

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

So you are in favor of billions of dollars in taxpayer money - we're broke, remember? - going to the five most profitable oil companies, huge companies that pay zero or few taxes.

We are broke - and you want my and your tax dollars to subsidize those private profit centers with welfare dollars?

Since when is it right for the American people to pay for the profits of private companies and their shareholders?

No, that's not right in the least! BP should pay the 9.9 billion dollars it costs to clean up the gulf due to their oil spill. Not me. Not you.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

So you are in favor of billions of dollars in taxpayer money - we're broke, remember? - going to the five most profitable oil companies, huge companies that pay zero or few taxes.

We are broke - and you want my and your tax dollars to subsidize those private profit centers with welfare dollars?

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.co...k-at-our-10-k/

They pay plenty, not too mention all the $ collected per gallon by the federal government. I know your agenda is for no one to profit and the world to be covered with roses and nobody has to actually DO anything to get the things they need/want but that isn't reality. Exxon operates at about 10% profit, the fact that they move a lot of product makes their profit large. What about the matching funds they pay for their employees?

If you end subsidies for them you need to end them for everyone, this I am in favor of. EVERYONE, private citizens, private companies and public companies. All pay the same "fair share".