End fossil fuel welfare handouts paid for by taxpayers

[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.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

I didn't say it, I quoted it and included the link to support the quote. How exactly does what he said not imply he wants to get gas prices higher?

[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".

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

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.

No. That's the opposite of what I want. I want the United States to be fair chance for everybody - not just the wealthiest corporations that own Congress and live off the taxpayers dime. I want the taxpayers to regain control of their government. I want each taxpayer to have the same opportunity to work hard and succeed in this country - something I've seen taken away over the past several decades. I want people to be able to work hard and become as wealthy as they wish due to their hard work.

Right now, I see the wealthy living off the poor, and the biggest companies squandering the chance of any little company to have a start-up due to favorable laws they purchase in their favor, and corporations owning our political process start to finish. I see the taxpayer no longer having any voice in Washington as they don't contribute big bucks, and now they no longer have a voice in electing their representatives due to Citizens United.

We live in a plutocracy. Not a democracy. And I want our democracy back.

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".

I could go for that. But we have to start somewhere. Do you agree with starting with the Big Five massively profitable oil companies, or not?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. That's the opposite of what I want. I want the United States to be fair chance for everybody - not just the wealthiest corporations that own Congress and live off the taxpayers dime. I want the taxpayers to regain control of their government. I want each taxpayer to have the same opportunity to work hard and succeed in this country - something I've seen taken away over the past several decades. I want people to be able to work hard and become as wealthy as they wish due to their hard work.

Right now, I see the wealthy living off the poor, and the biggest companies squandering the chance of any little company to have a start-up due to favorable laws they purchase in their favor, and corporations owning our political process start to finish. I see the taxpayer no longer having any voice in Washington as they don't contribute big bucks, and now they no longer have a voice in electing their representatives due to Citizens United.

We live in a plutocracy. Not a democracy. And I want our democracy back.



I could go for that. But we have to start somewhere. Do you agree with starting with the Big Five massively profitable oil companies, or not?

I will start at the top and work my way down.

The United States is offering a fair chance for everybody, right from the start, same odds. Make of them what you will. That is how poor people become wealthy and community organizers born to single parents become President, beating the odds.

The only way taxpayers can regain control of the government at this point is revolution and no one really has the energy or capability to do so, the next best thing is voting, few do that with any kind of information. Status quo after status quo. Single term limits for all, this was never meant to be a career, it was meant to be a service and an honorable one at that.

The wealthy support the poor, not the other way around, where does all that money given to the poor come from? Other poor?
Small companies start up all the time and are able to thrive, society has turned a bit on that and are looking for a service first mentality, not just the lowest price the large company can provide me with. I have two companies, both started in the last 6 years and doing quite well against all odds.

I actually agree about corporations owning the government, all branches, both parties. DC is a pit and needs to be torn down in lieu of a do over. Start from scratch, see if they can find some document written in plain English to use as a framework amongst the rubble. One that doesn't require so much "interpretation".

The taxpayer (collective) pays more than any corporation and is meant to own the government as a result. Not Citizens United or Hollywood big shots paying 14MM to have dinner with the President or any one interest. Agreed but it has to work both ways. See?

We live in a Constitutional Republic, never has been a Democracy. Elections used to be, sort of, until the electoral system. The only thing separating us from a Kingdom is we elect our inept leaders and then are stuck with them, often more than once as the % of educated voters goes down every year.

To answer your question, no I do not agree with starting anywhere. It must be broad spectrum, rip it off like a Band-Aid for ALL because there is no "starting with" they would get it done and maintain the rest of the untenable subsidies until they spent (read wasted) that money and go looking for another villain to rob.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. That's the opposite of what I want. I want the United States to be fair chance for everybody - not just the wealthiest corporations that own Congress and live off the taxpayers dime. I want the taxpayers to regain control of their government. I want each taxpayer to have the same opportunity to work hard and succeed in this country - something I've seen taken away over the past several decades. I want people to be able to work hard and become as wealthy as they wish due to their hard work.

Right now, I see the wealthy living off the poor, and the biggest companies squandering the chance of any little company to have a start-up due to favorable laws they purchase in their favor, and corporations owning our political process start to finish. I see the taxpayer no longer having any voice in Washington as they don't contribute big bucks, and now they no longer have a voice in electing their representatives due to Citizens United.

We live in a plutocracy. Not a democracy. And I want our democracy back.

Stop it, from what your voluminous run-on political posts, it is obvious that you don't want people to have the chance to work hard and get wealthy. What you really want a communist society where the wealth is spread equally, the incentive to work hard and make something of yourself is taken away, and the limits of what you can do is controlled by government. You want the so called rich to pay usurious tax rates which take away the incentive for people to work hard, make money, create jobs and stimulate the economy. Instead, you want anyone who tries to make money to pay a penalty to those that sit on their a$$ waiting for the government to take care of them.

The hypocrite you are makes your nonsensical rants on the computers and technology made by those big corporations that you despise. Funny that people from all over the world are still rushing to come to this "plutocracy" that you claim it is to have the opportunity to have no limits on what wealth can come to them with hard work and the opportunities that this country presents. Thank god your philosophies will be going in history on par with Jimmy Carter come the end of the year.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I will start at the top and work my way down.

The United States is offering a fair chance for everybody, right from the start, same odds. Make of them what you will.

No. Income for people making less than $250,000 a year - that is over 95% of Americans - has stagnated or gone down over the past 50 years. Meanwhile, the wealthiest Americans have gotten more income, and more tax breaks.

The only way taxpayers can regain control of the government at this point is revolution and no one really has the energy or capability to do so, the next best thing is voting, few do that with any kind of information.

I agree with you there. Not enough vote, and few actually vote for the person or party whose interests aline with their own.

Single term limits for all, this was never meant to be a career, it was meant to be a service and an honorable one at that.

I disagree with term limits. I want someone to be accountable to voters, not free to do exactly as they wish in office.

The wealthy support the poor, not the other way around, where does all that money given to the poor come from? Other poor?

The wealthy do not support the poor, the middle three income brackets support the poor.

Small companies start up all the time and are able to thrive,

Only 1 in 5 small businesses are still in business after 5 years.

Society has turned a bit on that and are looking for a service first mentality, not just the lowest price the large company can provide me with. I have two companies, both started in the last 6 years and doing quite well against all odds.

I am on my second good business, too. But I'm a professional, with a good education. I don't manufacture, I sell my knowledge and skill. The most people I have hired at one time is 6 or 7. Now - we all live in the same community, so money earned here, is spent here, locally. And that's a good thing, certainly

I laugh at what happened to the Facebook IPO - it sorta shows that you can't sell imaginary value. We should go back to manufacturing - those tangible things

I actually agree about corporations owning the government, all branches, both parties. DC is a pit and needs to be torn down in lieu of a do over. Start from scratch, see if they can find some document written in plain English to use as a framework amongst the rubble. One that doesn't require so much "interpretation".

I absolutely agree with you that it is virtually all people, both parties. There are a few "clean" people in Congress, but I'll bet I could only come up with less than 20 or so.

The taxpayer (collective) pays more than any corporation and is meant to own the government as a result. Not Citizens United or Hollywood big shots paying 14MM to have dinner with the President or any one interest. Agreed but it has to work both ways.

I absolutely agree that big money should not buy government. But no money should buy government. All American citizens own the government, not just "taxpayers".

We live in a Constitutional Republic, never has been a Democracy. Elections used to be, sort of, until the electoral system. The only thing separating us from a Kingdom is we elect our inept leaders and then are stuck with them, often more than once as the % of educated voters goes down every year.

We don't elect, the candidate with the most money wins.

To answer your question, no I do not agree with starting anywhere. It must be broad spectrum, rip it off like a Band-Aid for ALL because there is no "starting with" they would get it done and maintain the rest of the untenable subsidies until they spent (read wasted) that money and go looking for another villain to rob.

I disagree. That would collapse our economy. We have to start somewhere, bit by bit.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

Stop it, from what your voluminous run-on political posts, it is obvious that you don't want people to have the chance to work hard and get wealthy. What you really want a communist society where the wealth is spread equally, the incentive to work hard and make something of yourself is taken away, and the limits of what you can do is controlled by government. You want the so called rich to pay usurious tax rates which take away the incentive for people to work hard, make money, create jobs and stimulate the economy. Instead, you want anyone who tries to make money to pay a penalty to those that sit on their a$$ waiting for the government to take care of them.

The hypocrite you are makes your nonsensical rants on the computers and technology made by those big corporations that you despise. Funny that people from all over the world are still rushing to come to this "plutocracy" that you claim it is to have the opportunity to have no limits on what wealth can come to them with hard work and the opportunities that this country presents. Thank god your philosophies will be going in history on par with Jimmy Carter come the end of the year.

Having a bad day, little angry man? Want a little cheese with your self-rightous "I hate you!" whine? Don't lie about "what I think", you stupid little bigot. How dare you lecture me on "what I think". Keep your assumptions and hate to yourself. I'm not interested in your nasty little attacks on your imaginary enemies. Feel free to be an ignorant douche, but stop trying to rub it off on me. Ewww. You're nasty. You may think you're entitled to have a childish little name-calling hissy fit, and everyone has to stop and cowtow to you. Go off in the corner, loser. Nobody cares about your self-rightous little narcissistic tantrum.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

Having a bad day, little angry man? Want a little cheese with your self-rightous "I hate you!" whine? Don't lie about "what I think", you stupid little bigot.

I am the angry person? Once again you are the first to throw arrows and call names. I am sorry that you constantly make a fool of yourself and I am just one of many that feel the need to point that out.

Carry on with your nonsensical hypocritical BS, I don't have time to waste on you at the moment, I am trying to earn the money you want the government to take from me and so it can waste it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

I am the angry person? Once again you are the first to throw arrows and call names.

LOL. Uh, no, little "hypocrite you are". Go away, little angry person. Stop lying about "what I think" and trying to color me with your hate and bigotry, accusing me of being a communist, etc.

Carry on with your nonsensical hypocritical BS, I don't have time to waste on you at the moment, I am trying to earn the money you want the government to take from me and so it can waste it.

ROFMAO.

You're a joke. Right?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL. Uh, no, little "hypocrite you are". Go away, little angry person. Stop lying about "what I think" and trying to color me with your hate and bigotry.



ROFMAO.

You're a joke. Right?

Do you really think you look smart doing this?

I do appreciate you proving my points every time I try to debate you. Now go ahead and fallaciously argue with anyone who disagrees with you like the omniscient fool that you consistently prove to be. I will take RBE's sound advice and not get sucked into your votex of idiocy.

[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.