Alderian....I wonder if you get soooooo offended at profits when:
GM---i.e. Unions --- make big profits?
When Apple makes big profits?
When insurance companies...that are owned by pension funds and teacher's unions make big profits...

..I mean....are you TRULY such a fucking moron that you hte profits and don't get the idea the EVERY company seeks to make a profit...and, more to the point...every good "Liberal" you worship MAKES A PROFIT off his investments....blah blah blah....oh, why do I bother...you morons don't have enough expansive brain power to break free of your Liberal Professor's bondage...

Keep feeding your profits to good "liberal" Capitalists, and pretend you are someohow saving the world while asshole liberlas spend 1,000 time the power on their EXTERIOR lighting than you spend to power your whole house for a decade....

Asshole hypocrite fuckinn liberals...

I think one of the driving factors for 'ending big oil subsidies' is to influence the market to other energy sources.

Ones that are more plentiful, locally available, and carbon neutral.

Krellin... um... I think Alderian was advocating FOR the subsidies. And, I think you are too.

Oil subsidies are a good thing, for the exact reasons that Alderian said (Krellin I think you misunderstood his post and you two actually agree)

Besides the subsidies only go to domestic companies, and domestic oil companies spend their profits in the United States and keep them competitive at producing oil which is then taxed by the U.S. government.

Yonni....any MORON that advocates subsidies clearly has ZERO reading comprehension....ie.....YOU.

Yeah....tell every non-tax paying IDIOT out there that you can get "X: for free....and watch demand skyrocket beyond belief. Hell...tell a bunch of welfare fucks that they will get anally fucked FOR FREE by a dildo covered in glass shards....and you will end up with a bunch of rednecks in the emergency room with bleeding asses.

Morons don't have the intellect to distinguish rational thought...or to grasp that Government "FREEEEE..." means "Bitch don't get a job because corporation pays too much in taxe..."


idiots....

Jesus, whisky got you mad?

Yeah, oops, I meant to say against.

I was trying to say that you two both agree.

So, don't give me shit about reading comprehension when you very much misunderstood what he was saying.

Also, isn't ending big oil subsidies part of the 'liberal agenda'? I think I'm just really fucking confused by the drunken ramblings of a flop dick moron.

Krellin, you do seem to have missed my point. To clarify, I do not think profit is bad. When I say "horrible rich", you should read the sarcasm. Or at least the invisible air quotes. I supposed I could have said "horrible" rich.

The point was that removing these subsidies isn't going to take money out of big oil's pocket and put it in the pockets of consumers. It is in fact going to take money out of consumer's pockets and put it in the pocket of government.

I'm fine with a straight up argument that removing them might encourage alternative energy sources, not that I necessarily agree, but that would at least be a viable discussion.

I'm not fine with saying that the Republicans and some Democrats that shot down the removal of these subsidies are just whores for Big Oil.

Is that clearer for you?

"But it will affect the bottom line of the consumer, who while paying more at the gas pump, won't be getting a matching tax break."

True, but that's only half the story. If not refunded, that money can go to something we actually want/need (alternative energy research, anyone?) - which as far as I'm concerned, may be as good as a tax break. Also, *I* wont' be getting a price hike. I use public transport and ride my bike whenever possible. I put less than $30.00 a month into gas. Cutting those subsidies helps people like me directly.

Who does it hurt? Assholes who live in suburbia and drive their SUV to work (i.e. Krellin).

What will eliminating the "big oil subsidies" really accomplish?

I don't really know much about this. What does "big oil subsidies" accomplish?

They fatten the pockets of oilmen.

Two of Fortune 500's most profitable companies of 2011 are oil companies:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/performers/companies/profits/

They don't need our subsidies. It's the worst form of corporate welfare, to take money from the poor and middle class and give it to the wealthy.

Sorry, that should be: "Two of Fortune 500's THREE most profitable companies of 2011 are oil companies:"

#ckroberts, see, what you say "sounds" good but with a little thought, I just don't see how it holds water. If you take the subsidies away, do you really think they won't raise to price of gas so they still make the same amount of money?

Which is better, the rich paying most of the taxes that pay big oil, or everyone paying more at the pump, including the poor and middle class?

"Which is better, the rich paying most of the taxes that pay big oil....."

Isn't that patently untrue? What percentage of net our tax income is provided by the rich (say $200k+ and don't just quote income tax either, I mean ALL tax revenue). I would suspect not a large amount. Certainly not the majority that would allow you to claim "most."

In the US, the top 10% of earners contribute about 45% of total tax revenues (source: The Economist - http://www.economist.com/node/21530093).

Good god...Have any of you people seen how much money APPLE is making? WTF? If corporate profits are so bad, why isn't Obama and company going after Apple? And when GM starts making billions, how come THEY don't get targeted? etc etc etc. Again...liberal hypocrisy at its absolute finest.

If you take a *rational* look at the oil industry, you will see that their profits AS COMPARED TO their investments gives them about a 10% margin...which is decent, but in no way earth shattering or "greedy".

Have some perspective, people. This attack on the oil industry is driven by environmentalism at the core...not because they make profits.

Thanks Alex. Not quite a majority but close enough that Alderian's point stands in principle, if not in fact.

Sorry, sorry, Krellin I'm being a damn blind leftist liberal idiot and refusing to compromise or see reason again.

All that being said, I still feel in favor of cutting the subsidies. We need to get off of oil, and if we need a few growing pains to do so, isn't that sometimes necessary? I would think conservatives would be LEAPING at an opportunity to cut government spending like this. Why not now?

YJ...get off oil HOW? What is this miracle energy source that you are hiding from the world? Once again...there are nice philosophical concepts of Utopia that you can dream about all you want, but at some point in time cold hard reality, truth and facts must be a part of your picture.

And...whether or not you refuse to compromise...you still didn't answer my question about why OIL is so bad, but Apple is so good...or GM, for that matter...who makes the cars that burn the oil. The narrow-minded, singluar obsession with oil companies is the compromise of principle that you ARE making. Do you know what it takes to manufacture computers? Toxic chemicals and materials that are stripped from the earth...and lots and lots of petroleum-based plastics, amongst other things....all so that we can have electricity-gobbling gadgets to amuse ourselves.

As for oil company subsidies....why don't you advocate ending ALL corporate subsidies. End subsidies to farmers and manufacturers. End ALL subsidies, if you want to be intellectually honest.

But you don't...you target one industry...claim it's because of their gross profits (which is false....as I pointed out)...and pretend nobody knows it's because your entire agenda is driven by the false-religion of environmentalism....which you do NOT equally apply to all industries (i.e., as pointed out, the polluting computer industry..)

So...when you man up enough to demonstrate intellectual integrity and balance in your arguments against corporations, I'll stop calling you a hypocrite.

It's pretty simple - there is no reason to subsidize them.

We do subsidize them.

That's money we could use for something else.

So we decide to stop doing it.

There is no reason to subsidize LOTS of industries...so why not end all subsidies instead of just targeting one specific industry.

The money could then be returned to the tax payers...

Indeed, krellin, I agree.

Let's start with cotton subsidies, which benefit none but a few thousand West Texas cotton farmers.

And also lead to abject misery (even suicide) among poor cotton farmers in India who cannot compete against American subsidized, unfreely marketed cotton.

Agreed. We shall target cotton....but they are hardly the only farmers getting cash. We should also target all the bogus research funded by the gov'ment

End farm subsidies... don't end science funding.

Those aren't subsidies, those are just smart.

But farm subsidies are dumb as shit they cause like 50% of our problems in this world.

Alderian, the problem with that argument is that it doesn't have any logical end. Why not subsidize oil until it's free, raising taxes on the wealthy? Why not subsidize every industry?

Also, those subsidies aren't going to making gas cheaper: "CEOs of oil and gas companies had the highest median value of total direct compensation at $13.7 million in 2010, up 17.3% from the year before." from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576313381721585032.html

We are taxing everyone, mostly the relatively rich but still everyone, so that fantastically profitable companies can pay their CEOs enormous incomes.

Also, yes, we should be paying more at the pump, if that should be the case if we eliminated subsidies (although I don't think it would be). Perverse government incentives helped ruin public transportation in this country because it was seen as more socially desirable. Now people want to use government subsidies to promote a different form of transportation because it's seen as more socially desirable.

Krellin: I would strongly suggest we end all corporate subsidies, including direct ones like payments but also indirect ones like accounting loopholes and protection from environmental and health hazards created, as you note, in the manufacture of things like computers and other consumer electronics.

@YJ, "I would think conservatives would be LEAPING at an opportunity to cut government spending like this." - Did the bill to cut the subsidies include a tax cut? If not, then it isn't reducing government spending, it is just allowing the government to allocate the funds elsewhere, while the common man still has to pay, just directly rather than through taxes.

@whoever...

Whether the subsidy is currently reasonable or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is what will the affect of changing it be, whether increased, decreased, or removed.

The media and liberals are saying that removing the oil subsidies would benefit the common man. I don't see it. How would it benefit the common man? Would the overpaid executives take a paycut rather than raise the price of oil? Do you really think so? It is just so illogical.

"We are taking everyone"... Really? My understanding is that there are a ton of people that don't pay income taxes and instead actually get credit because of their low income level. And these are the people that currently have their gas subsidized who would have to come up with the money once those subsidies were removed. If I wanted to act stupid I would claim that you must hate poor people.

@CKroberts --- so, in other words....you are leaning towards a flat tax if you want to get really simple about it. What did you make? Multiply by x%....send it in. I'm all for that. With the one exception that you cut out, say the first whatever thousand (poverty line plus, say $5K to pull a number out of the air) ...so

[(whatcha make) - (poverty + $5K)] * Tax Rate

Of course, corporate taxes are ridiculous anyway....corporations do NOT pay taxes - they are baked in to the cost of the product, and thus consumers pay ALL taxes. So really, cut corporate subsidies....cut corporate taxes...and put economics back in to the hands of the people

@Alderian --- actually if you take subsidies away from the Oil companies, you can guarantee the consumer will be *hurt*....they won't cut profit margins and nobody will take a pay cut - they will just charge more at the pump, for plastics, etc.

Just like when Congress modifies the laws regarding bank fees, etc tot retailers recently...immediate response from banks? New fees...which were targeted at the consumer...and probably structured so as to generate even more revenue than they were making before...

Hey Krellin, fancy joining us in our google+ hangout?

Alderian, there's a certain, I don't know exactly how to phrase it - moral hazard, I guess, in taxing people so that the already enormously wealthy and powerful can become more wealthy and powerful. Don't you see a certain perversity there? Even if your economic argument was correct, which I don't believe it is, I would reject subsidies on the grounds of immorality. If the government wants gas prices to be lower for poor people, which it shouldn't, then it should either pay poor people a stipend for their gasoline needs or it should nationalize the oil industry.

But your argument, I think, doesn't hold water. For most people, gasoline costs are elastic -- there is a certain minimum amount you have to purchase, but beyond that you can reduce your costs. Gasoline prices can only rise so much before people won't buy it. Then, the oil industry can't afford to pay its CEOs those kinds of salaries anymore. Eliminate the indirect subsidies like zoning laws that encouragement car-friendly roads, and the margin decreases even further.

The benefit to the common man, whoever he might be, is obvious: our government is in enormous debt. They're spending trillions of dollars they don't have, and somebody is going to have to pay for that.

Also, when you say that not everyone gets taxed, it's true that not everyone gets income taxed, but virtually everyone pays some sort of taxes, either directly (property, sales, etc) or indirectly (corporate taxes or tariffs that raise prices, for example).

Krellin, I would probably in my ideal world eliminate all subsidies and welfare of any kind and all corporate and sales taxes, and have a negative income tax with two or maybe three levels of income tax above that being taxed. So, in Tuscaloosa County Alabama, where I live, you might not be taxed anything below $12,000 and receive a tax refund if your income was below that. Everyone up to, say, $100,000 would pay a very small tax (less than 5%). Above that would be slightly higher. Everything above some extremely high income, say $5 million, would have a much higher rate similar to the current highest tax rates.

Krellin: what everybody else said. I'm pretty much anti-subsidy in general. I have *that* much faith in the free market, despite being a hypocritical ultra leftist zombie.

As for getting off oil, you know we aren't going to have a choice in the very near future, right? It's gonna run out. And we need to develop an alternative before that happens. Nobody is suggesting its as easy as snapping our fingers, which is why maybe a bit of scientific funding is in order... that is, if you trust our academics to make an alternative energy source with their liberal bias.

@YJ -- You know, YJ, they been saying we are going to run out of oil for a long time now, right? And there are now more known reserves than ever. You can keep buying in to the "the-sky-is-falling" trap if you want....but every now and then you really MUST look at reality.

There is also a segment of scientists that will suggest that oil is still being produced - which has been observed when companies have gone back to "dry" wells and found them with oil again. In truth, we have *no idea* how much oil is out there.

But...OK - I'll even grant you the notion that eventually, one day, we will run out of oil. Fine...there are plenty of companies researching new forms of energy, and renewables, etc. This is a GOOD THING. I don't think anyone could say different. The problem is these energy sources are not very useful, in part because we do not have adequate storage devices. GM gets all this ridiculous praise for putting out a highly advanced "electric" car....that goes 30 miles before the giant battery has run out of energy....and then reverts to one of the MOST effective form of energy storage: petroleum.

The energy solution you all scream for simply does not exist, or YOU WOULD SEE IT IN USE. What is so difficult to comprehend about that very basic TRUTH?

You know where the funding for energy research can come from? Entrepenuers. Government funding is *rarely* effective or efficient as compared to private research with a profit motive. Government funding is a guaranteed paycheck whether or not results are produced. here's a great example of government funding: Climate Research. No doubt you are one that will say "global warming is settled science! Everyone knows it is true!".....and yet we keep funding the research???? Yeah....we don't need government funding in to energy.

WHEN we are actually approaching the end of oil, I *guarantee* you that the energy companies that make their money off selling energy....the companies with a PROFIT motive...will make damned sure that they are front and center in the research community.

The fact that they are NOT....the fact that oil companies have no fear of running out of profits....ought to tell you something...it ought to suggest to you that we are *nowhere near* running out of oil, despite what Al Gore and friends will tell you (as they fly around in their petroleum guzzling private jets...)

Regarding your self-deprecating comments...I'm glad yo are finally becoming comfortable with your MO. As for academics come up with solution? No...I don't trust academia at all, if by academia you mean government funded schools.

"oil companies have no fear of running out of profits....ought to tell you something...it ought to suggest to you that we are *nowhere near* running out of oil"

So, you are suggesting that oil companies turning profits shows how sustainable they are, and this in turn justifies the subsidies that help them turn a profit? Even you must admit that's a pretty circular argument, Krellin.

But I actually think your other arguments have merit - they just don't in any way support or contradict anybody's opinion on whether we should be subsidizing big oil. It's an entirely different conversation.

Yellow jacket, I think you missed my point. For example, the LUMBER industry cuts down trees...if they cut down ALL the trees, then they will run out of trees to cut down. Thus, they invest in PLANTING trees so that they will have more trees to cut down later.

Now...the oil industry makes money providing energy, currently in the form of petroleum. These corporations have stock holders and a whole structure that keeps a close eye (quarterly) on the ability of the company to turn profits. As conditions change (for example, Federal lands get closed to drilling, close-shore drilling gets closed, etc) they INVEST in technology to continue oil exploration....they develop deep-water techniques, they develop methods to slant drill and all sort of things...i.e. they are always seeking the next best way to continue making and increase profits if possible.

Now...IF we are about to run out of oil, do you not think that these corporations would be investing in the replacement energy source....so that they can continue to make profits?

In fact, there is NOTHING circular about this argument at all. It is a progressive, rather linear argument, if you understand what the purpose of the corporations are.

And here is the key: The REAL purpose of Exxon-Mobile, for example, if NOT to produce oil....it is to MAKE MONEY. That is what ALL corporations do...and when they fail to do it, they cease to exist.

OK....I've stated we should stop subsidizing EVERYTHING if we are going to stop subsidizing the oil companies. Targeting one industry is stupid.

I've ALSO stated that if you stop subsidizing oil companies you will only hurt consumers, not the oil companies....so it's a silly thing anyway.

Three...if you are for government subsidizing research into alternative energy...then why don't you subsidize the ENERGY companies that have a profit motive in producing energy IF they are about to lose the ability to continue making money (i.e. run out of oil) and therefore will need a new energy product to sell.

But honestly...we do NOT SUBSIDIZE the oil industry. They are provided certain TAX BREAKS, just like many other corporations. SUBSIDIES are payments. TAX BREAKS are the absence of a charge. There *is* a difference.

SOLYNDRA, though, a "green energy" company, received subsidies and went bankrupt.

If there are going to be subsidies (and there always will be) I'd rather they go to profitable companies that will use them to benefit us (i.e. continue to provide us energy AND JOBS)