End Green Energy Subsidies Now!

[kaz]

What subsidies do oil companies get? Are you referring to allowing them to write off their expenses again?

Only a liberal is too stupid to understand the difference between government giving out money and a business not paying income tax on it's expenses, which means it isn't income.

Oil companies lobby incessantly (to the tune of untold millions) to AVOID paying taxes.

There is NO REASON for this, as there is no cap on the price of gas - thus; tax brakes do not lower the price of gas.

If it's so fucking profitable, force them to pay their fair share of taxes.

Now, back to green energy, why shouldn't THEY get a tax break, if we are doing the same for oil?

By the way, most tax breaks for green energy, go directly to the consumer.

I get it, though - corporations are people too.

Begging the question. You didn't address the point. Are you referring to oil companies writing off their expenses? Answer the question.

 

[Discombobulated]

Green energy has always been more expensive than traditional fuels. Which is why the industry wouldn't exist without extensive gov't subsidies. Those subsidies cost taxpayers real money and distort the market for energy. Wind power has been subsidized since the 1980s (maybe more)..
Especially now with oil prices plunging due to increased production (take that, you "we're running out of oil" milquetoasts) the difference between green and traditional energy is even more.
Time to pull the plug on this expensive waste of taxpayer resource.

No, you're wrong as usual. Instead of following your stupid fucking suggestions what we ought to do is devote massive resources into research and development of new energy technologies so that this country can lead the way into the 21st century instead of lagging behind with the energy solutions and technology of the 19th century.

I hate to break it to you but windmills have been around for oh several hundred years now and electric vehicles originated at the same time as ICE powered vehicles. Both of your technologies lost out to fossil fuel powered alternatives because the FF systems WORK BETTER and MORE EFFICIENTLY!

The morons pushing outdated tech is YOU!

Petroleum fueled internal combustion engines were 19th century innovations. If we follow your logic this must be the technological bottleneck, and there's no need to research better technologies because what we have already works. Sounds like a real spirit of innovation and enterprise. And people wonder why the Chinese and Germans are kicking our ass right now, they are poised to make the next technological leap. We are rapidly becoming a second rate economy.

 

[kaz]

Unfortunately, yes, they are. That Oil companies pay taxes just like other companies is way, way past their comprehension. Then again, what isn't past their comprehension? I haven't been able to establish a baseline yet, they fail every test of comprehension.

No, that's already been covered; on average, they pay about 11%.

11% of what? revenue? gross margin? operating margin? net margin? EBIT? EBITDA? pro forma?How are you measuring that?

 

[Discombobulated]

Yes I see your point professor: Why continue to research new technologies when we can rely on 19th century technology to meet the energy needs of the 21st century.

What does that even mean?
First off, you confuse subsidies with research grants. Not surprising given you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground.
Second, do you think if gov't stops subsidizing green energy then all research will just go away? Didnt you post that oil companies themselves are investing in energy research?

You seem confused, I never mentioned anything about oil companies. But I can certainly understand why oil companies wouldn't want people to be energy independent.

You seem unable to answer simple questions in a direct manner.
This is because you are both stupid and ill informed.

Which questions are those professor? I didn't see you ask any.

Questions are usually indicated by a special mark that looks like this: ?
Just to make this easy I'll repost them.
What does that even mean?
do you think if gov't stops subsidizing green energy then all research will just go away?
Didnt you post that oil companies themselves are investing in energy research?

Again you are confused. No, I didn't post anything about oil companies. If you have any further earth shattering questions maybe you could simply review the thread so you can figure out what you think you're talking about.

 

[kaz]

The biggest Oil subsidy is Iraq War...

We are talking trillions....

Word games. Look dude. I'm a libertarian who is against being in the middle east at all. And I agree also that we would not be there but for oil. We aren't in places like Indochina or Africa that have pretty bad regions that don't have oil. However, to call the Iraq war a "subsidy" for oil companies is pretty stupid. It's a broad policy with broad implications supported by both parties.

.

I dont want to derail here, and I agree with you on the oil subsidies.
But you wrote "we arent in places like Indochina or Africa."
Hello? We spent almost 10 years in Indochina. We have had continuing adventures in Africa. Both places of course have oil as well.

As for indochina, we didn't stay. We did stay in the middle east. As for africa, I didn't mean we aren't there at all, I meant we are there on nowhere the scale.

 

[kaz]

The biggest Oil subsidy is Iraq War...

We are talking trillions....

Word games. Look dude. I'm a libertarian who is against being in the middle east at all. And I agree also that we would not be there but for oil. We aren't in places like Indochina or Africa that have pretty bad regions that don't have oil. However, to call the Iraq war a "subsidy" for oil companies is pretty stupid. It's a broad policy with broad implications supported by both parties.

.

I dont want to derail here, and I agree with you on the oil subsidies.
But you wrote "we arent in places like Indochina or Africa."
Hello? We spent almost 10 years in Indochina. We have had continuing adventures in Africa. Both places of course have oil as well.

Compared to Oil the resources and manpower to secure a world supply has cost the US economy trillions.... These have to be considered indirect subsidies(and the US didn't even get the Iraq Oil)....

Adventures in Africa and Indochina has been very small and much shorter compared to middle east....

The term "indirect subsidy" is true, but it kills you in the discussion which was comparing them to actual subsidies. Game over, you lose.

 

[kaz]

Yes, I spent quite a few years at GE Energy including Nuclear and Energy Services. Mad Cabbie doesn't know what he is talking about. He never does.

I stated that oil companies, in general pay approximately 11% federal income tax.

If you have figures to refute my claim, by all means post them or STFU.

Answer my question, 11% of what?

 

[kaz]

[Fracking's great. Gets rid of billions of gallons of fresh water that we don't need.

Even the EPA says you are full of shit. You know a liberal is seriously full of shit when the EPA says you are full of shit. Wow. You have to reek, it's coming out of your ears. I'd wash those clothes. Maybe you should burn them.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

The biggest Oil subsidy is Iraq War...

We are talking trillions....

Word games. Look dude. I'm a libertarian who is against being in the middle east at all. And I agree also that we would not be there but for oil. We aren't in places like Indochina or Africa that have pretty bad regions that don't have oil. However, to call the Iraq war a "subsidy" for oil companies is pretty stupid. It's a broad policy with broad implications supported by both parties.

.

I dont want to derail here, and I agree with you on the oil subsidies.
But you wrote "we arent in places like Indochina or Africa."
Hello? We spent almost 10 years in Indochina. We have had continuing adventures in Africa. Both places of course have oil as well.

Compared to Oil the resources and manpower to secure a world supply has cost the US economy trillions.... These have to be considered indirect subsidies(and the US didn't even get the Iraq Oil)....

Adventures in Africa and Indochina has been very small and much shorter compared to middle east....

The term "indirect subsidy" is true, but it kills you in the discussion which was comparing them to actual subsidies. Game over, you lose.

I've already explained to you that we disagree over what constitutes a subsidy.

If telling yourself that you won the descusion makes your dick hard, I'm OK with it.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Yes, I spent quite a few years at GE Energy including Nuclear and Energy Services. Mad Cabbie doesn't know what he is talking about. He never does.

I stated that oil companies, in general pay approximately 11% federal income tax.

If you have figures to refute my claim, by all means post them or STFU.

Answer my question, 11% of what?

That demanding, condescending tone might work with your paperboy, your kids or your old lady, but it ain't going to fly with me.

You figure it out, genius.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

[Fracking's great. Gets rid of billions of gallons of fresh water that we don't need.

Even the EPA says you are full of shit. You know a liberal is seriously full of shit when the EPA says you are full of shit. Wow. You have to reek, it's coming out of your ears. I'd wash those clothes. Maybe you should burn them.

If you did not act like such an enormously, self-absorbed dickhead, someone might actually try and debate you.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Unfortunately, yes, they are. That Oil companies pay taxes just like other companies is way, way past their comprehension. Then again, what isn't past their comprehension? I haven't been able to establish a baseline yet, they fail every test of comprehension.

No, that's already been covered; on average, they pay about 11%.

11% of what? revenue? gross margin? operating margin? net margin? EBIT? EBITDA? pro forma?How are you measuring that?

Online, you will find the IRS tax code. Please look it up and figure out how taxes are configured.

 

[g5000]

No, that's already been covered; on average, they pay about 11%.

11% of what? revenue? gross margin? operating margin? net margin? EBIT? EBITDA? pro forma?How are you measuring that?

I'm sorry you need it explained to you.

They pay 11% of what corporations are normally taxed at, which is explained here.

 

[g5000]

[Fracking's great. Gets rid of billions of gallons of fresh water that we don't need.

Even the EPA says you are full of shit. You know a liberal is seriously full of shit when the EPA says you are full of shit. Wow. You have to reek, it's coming out of your ears. I'd wash those clothes. Maybe you should burn them.

Fracking uses tens of billions of gallons of fresh water. Please link to an EPA site which says this is not true. Thank you.

 

[g5000]

Fracking those wells used 97bn gallons of water, raising new concerns about unforeseen costs of America's energy rush.

Half of the 97bn gallons of water was used to frack wells in Texas, which has experienced severe drought for years – and where production is expected to double over the next five years.

Fracking is depleting water supplies in America s driest areas report shows

 

[g5000]

Here's the EPA:

Although the national study should enhance our scientific knowledge, some concerns associated with overall natural gas and shale gas extraction, including hydraulic fracturing, are already well known. These operations can result in a number of potential impacts to the environment, including:

• Stress on surface water and ground water supplies from the withdrawal of large volumes of water used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing;

Hydraulic Fracturing US EPA

 

[g5000]

So I guess we know who is actually full of shit. As usual, it's kaz.

 

[Siete]

Frack Kaz.

 

[The Rabbi]

What does that even mean?
First off, you confuse subsidies with research grants. Not surprising given you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground.
Second, do you think if gov't stops subsidizing green energy then all research will just go away? Didnt you post that oil companies themselves are investing in energy research?

You seem confused, I never mentioned anything about oil companies. But I can certainly understand why oil companies wouldn't want people to be energy independent.

You seem unable to answer simple questions in a direct manner.
This is because you are both stupid and ill informed.

Which questions are those professor? I didn't see you ask any.

Questions are usually indicated by a special mark that looks like this: ?
Just to make this easy I'll repost them.
What does that even mean?
do you think if gov't stops subsidizing green energy then all research will just go away?
Didnt you post that oil companies themselves are investing in energy research?

Again you are confused. No, I didn't post anything about oil companies. If you have any further earth shattering questions maybe you could simply review the thread so you can figure out what you think you're talking about.

Unable to answer simple questions.
Yeah, you're stupid all right.

 

[kaz]

The biggest Oil subsidy is Iraq War...

We are talking trillions....

Word games. Look dude. I'm a libertarian who is against being in the middle east at all. And I agree also that we would not be there but for oil. We aren't in places like Indochina or Africa that have pretty bad regions that don't have oil. However, to call the Iraq war a "subsidy" for oil companies is pretty stupid. It's a broad policy with broad implications supported by both parties.

.

I dont want to derail here, and I agree with you on the oil subsidies.
But you wrote "we arent in places like Indochina or Africa."
Hello? We spent almost 10 years in Indochina. We have had continuing adventures in Africa. Both places of course have oil as well.

Compared to Oil the resources and manpower to secure a world supply has cost the US economy trillions.... These have to be considered indirect subsidies(and the US didn't even get the Iraq Oil)....

Adventures in Africa and Indochina has been very small and much shorter compared to middle east....

The term "indirect subsidy" is true, but it kills you in the discussion which was comparing them to actual subsidies. Game over, you lose.

I've already explained to you that we disagree over what constitutes a subsidy.

If telling yourself that you won the descusion makes your dick hard, I'm OK with it.

You also don't know what apples to apples means. Or you're playing word games. You tell me.