jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (46 posts)

I... agree with... Obama!

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Hey all,

    Here's an article I barely came across (I saw it, and didn't believe my eyes. When I came back to look for it, it was gone)

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53977.html

    Obama wants to end subsidies to oil companies!! Cheer!

    While I wish he would extend this thinking to EVERY aspect of the economy, at least he's doing it to one area.

    I'm hesitant to trust him. Perhaps the legislation will say something different than what he's asking for. But for now, we agree.

    Here's another tidbit about gas prices: The price of gas isn't increasing, the dollar is simply losing value.

    http://www.goldmoney.com/commentary/the … o-far.html

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/4987452_f248.jpg

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      When I saw the topic, I nearly spit my tea all over the place. But yes, I agree: subsidies to oil companies ought to be ended, along with all manner of corporate subsidies.

      Heck, I want to get rid of farm subsidies, though my Iowa relatives might think I'm crazy.

      1. kerryg profile image86
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Word to this entire post.

        Central Iowa has the worst tasting water I've ever had. Maybe if they'd stop poisoning it growing "food" that humans cannot actually eat it'd taste good again. tongue

        A short and sweet analysis of why our idiotic farm policies have led to everything from the obesity crisis to the Mexican drug wars: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-25 … -meat-hfcs

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        wurd to that!

      3. profile image59
        C.J. Wrightposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        COMPLETELY AGREE!

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      http://cdn.epicski.com/f/fb/fbf89244_hell-frozen-over.jpg

    3. DTR0005 profile image86
      DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And the House is no on a digitalis drip....

    4. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How about ending all subsidies everywhere of every kind.  Personal, corporate, trade, technological, medical, food, housing, educational - all - universally, permanently -all.  No one ever gets a penny of any kind that they did not earn, borrow raise or receive from a voluntary source.  No more property transfers at all, ever.  That would be awesome.

      Obama's expressed goal is to remake the country into his utopian vision - wind mills and solar panels.  The end of oil subsidies is not out of some clear headed understanding of free market principles.  It is out of the desire to force gasoline prices higher.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RV8aIXm4DY

      "Genius" at work. Can a man be wrong more often in a 4 minute clip.  Arrogant and out of touch.

      1. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "The end of oil subsidies is not out of some clear headed understanding of free market principles.  It is out of the desire to force gasoline prices higher."

        And you know this how?

        Besides, there is no free market. Koch and their like BOUGHT IT, OWN IT, SOWN IT UP.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I know this from what Barry has been saying for years.  If you listen a man will tell you his bad intentions.

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, well...your bad is my good.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              For now. See you in the potato line, comrade.

              1. lovemychris profile image81
                lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Been there since 2003, while you've been living it up.

                Thanks for nothing, you and your "free-market" ideologues.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't notice you on the line.  If you have been there that long perhaps you should consider the rice line or perhaps seize the reigns of you own destiny and move.

                  1. DTR0005 profile image86
                    DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Perhaps we could get a lesson from a mover and shaker such as yourself. I asked our dearly-departed Lady Love for similar advice, but it was never forthcoming. As a business owner myself, please enlighten me. Seriously, you appear to have all the answers to grabbin' that apple-pie dream - do share with all us "under-six-figures-a-year" dullards.

  2. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Well, here's the big one Evan...will Congress let him?

    KIND of doubtful.
    But it is about time!
    This is the ONLY chance we have to DO something about Big Oil...

    There is a man...Jack Kemp's son, who is in Congress--a Republican. HE is in the mode of a real Repub, if he's anything like his dad...maybe he and Brown can be worked with to get this continous theft ended!

    And--OMG...watch this:!!

    http://maxkeiser.com/2011/04/28/kr142-k … f-america/

  3. William R. Wilson profile image59
    William R. Wilsonposted 5 years ago

    You know Evan, I have to agree with you on this one.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      yay!!

      let the fires burn another day! for tonight, we can agree!

  4. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago
  5. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    one thing that I AM worried about is that he will cut subsidies to oil, but then increase subsidies to other industries (i.e., sun, wind, water, etc).

    I would be against this movement. It would just be him supporting one area of the economy (a less efficient one) over another (more efficient one).

    I would have to disagree with him on doing so.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Baby steps, Evan.  wink

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How would you feel about government-funded research into more efficient renewable energy? Would that be better then a subsidy for folks who put in a wind turbine, exactly the same, or worse? Why?

      1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Spain subsidized it wind power industry for year.  The interior of Spain is windy, open and dry - it bankrupted Spain.

        1. kerryg profile image86
          kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You could make a similar case for oil and the US, of course...

          We subsidize oil companies to the tune of billions of dollars a year - probably hundreds of billions if you count indirect subsidies such as roads, ag subsidies that encourage oil-intensive farming, and wars  - yet the record high gas prices in 2008 contributed to the crash of the economy while oil companies stuck their middle fingers up at taxpayers and happily raked in record profits.

          Nuclear plants aren't really known for being cost effective either, and coal's estimated cost to the economy thanks to pollution-related health care costs and other factors is more than twice what we actually pay.

          Energy subsidies are pretty much a losing proposition for tax payers whatever it is we're subsidizing.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I suppose that the ultimate answer for all of this is for those who think that oil, nuclear, coal and natural gas are evil and that humans are destroying the Earth to drastically reduce the number of humans.

            Wind power works when the wind is blowing.  Solar power works where the sun shines consistently.  Neither is an uninterrupted source of power.  The wind mills of the Netherlands are backed up by conventional power plants.

            As for the specious oil diatribe, that is nothing more than the typical silliness continuously vomited up by those living in the comfort of the west.  No poor country could afford to be so stupid about its natural resources.  They dig their coal and drill their oil.  We reward idiots who would force us all to freeze hungry in the dark.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              However the wind tends to blow more when the demand for electricity is higher.
              Solar power doesn't depend on sunshine either, though it obviously provides more power when the sun shines brightly, it still works on a dull and overcast day.

              But why does the argument always seem to be about one form of power generation? What's wrong with wind generation in windy areas, solar in sunnier areas, tidal power where there are tides.
              Sure, back it up with conventional power plants, but with the emphasis on back up.

              1. kerryg profile image86
                kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks, John. I agree. I'm not arguing that oil, coal, nuclear, etc. should be phased out entirely - certainly not anytime soon - but given that they are based on finite resources with some pretty serious effects on the environment and human health (even if you don't believe in AGW), I think it is extremely stupid not to pursue cleaner renewable technologies wherever possible.

                As a resident of the Great Plains, which has excellent sun and wind resources without a huge population, my motives are also selfish - with the improved technologies that have been developed in recent years, I would love to see my region become energy independent... and if some of the promising technologies still in development pan out, we could even be the next Saudi Arabia! big_smile

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Coal gave way to oil and oil will give way to the next superior alternative.  That alternative has not yet materialized though fuel cells look good.  It was not government planners, centralized authority in a distant capital that decided when coal should yield to oil it was the market place.  If we are to find the next leap in energy production I doubt it will ever come from a government source.

                  1. kerryg profile image86
                    kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually we've been subsidizing oil and gas production to one degree or another since 1916.

                    "If we are to find the next leap in energy production I doubt it will ever come from a government source."

                    I'm a little curious what your logic for this is given that at least one supposed "next generation" energy source - nuclear - wouldn't even exist without government investment and subsidies, and coal is pretty much the only current major energy source that didn't depend on significant government aid to pass into widespread use. (I guess you could make a case for hydroelectric, too, since it's been used on a small scale for centuries, but the large scale hydroelectric dams capable of powering whole regions are, oops, government again.)

                  2. sn53Anon profile image59
                    sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Coal has not actually given way to oil. Coal is best for fixed facilities, and coal-powered cars. Oil is best for mobile applications.

              2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Because, the emphasis has been placed on fully replacing hydro-carbons based energy as if they are magically tainted.  The fantasy is that all these low density power sources are sufficient to provide power to modern society.  No where near enough.  All the low density, intermittent sources could supplement high density, steady flow power sources such as coal, nature gas, nuclear or hydrodynamic.

                Though not unreasonable to use as supplementary power the energy, materials and capital needed to create a full power grid of "green" sources would be prohibitively expensive and very, very dirty.

  6. Onusonus profile image87
    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    I'm tired of Evan posting all these pro-Obama threads. Let's botcot him.........

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      what's a botcot?

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I very small bed, one just big enough for your bottom

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          See, I'd have said a place for your droid to sleep...wink

        2. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not even close. It's a little bed for robots. It's also the letter next to the "Y" me and my cursed stubby fingers.......

        3. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Or a parasitic Amazonian fly.

  7. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    Unfortunately it reminds me of a town that I used to live near.

    A huge wind  turbine was built on the edge of town and as an example of output, the builders said that it would produce enough electricity to supply half  the towns needs.

    The local newspapers were inundated with letters from people demanding to know which half of the town would be supplied and what was that half expected to do when there was no wind!

  8. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Like a stock portfolio, energy sources should be diversified.
    That's how it works here in CA and they manage the intermittant nature of certain powers just fine.
    Cross-state or cross-region cooperation is also important. If the midwest has wind and CA has solar, each can put in and draw from different sources depending on their demand.
    It's not a future thing. It's happening already.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Really, don't you still have periodic summer brown outs.  Remember the rotating black outs?  As the rest of the nation is compelled by federal regulation to cut energy production who do you think spoiled, silly, delusional Californians will be able to buy surplus energy from?

      Barry wants to bankrupt electrical facilities powered by coal - he said as much.  It is just a matter of time - if we are forced to live in the perfect green liberal world - before we are all hungry, cold and naked in the dark.

      Look around you, check you closet and your pantry and tell me something that made it into your home with out oil.

  9. MikeNV profile image76
    MikeNVposted 5 years ago

    The people commenting here are very well intentioned, but until you understand what is being subsidized and how it is being subsidized and what the benefits are... well then you are just ignorant.

    It's just more of the Government Propaganda machine trying to get the masses all worked up as a distraction so they can continue to borrow, tax, and spend.  And it's both sides doing the damage.  If you think for a minute it's just the Democrats you are clearly wrong.  Under Obama's Budget the National Debt is projected to grow to $27 TRILLION over the next decade, under the Republican "Plan" $23 TRILLION.  The difference is the Republicans want to steal the Social Security benefits from the people that paid into the program all these years.

    ============ TIME TO EDUCATE YOURSELF READ BELOW ==============

    Exxon recently released its first quarter results for 2011.  The number grabbing the headlines was Exxon's profit: $10.65 billion in a single quarter.  The number not given quite as much exposure was the taxes it paid in that same quarter:  $8 billion, or 42% of income before taxes.

    And what does Exxon do with all that money it has left after paying $8 B in taxes?  It put $7.8 billion into capital and exploration, as part of its plans "to invest between $33 billion and $37 billion per year over the next five years to develop new energy supplies."

    In any other industry, that would be called "research and development."  Exxon is plowing 73% of its after-tax profits back into R&D.  Who would be better at spending $4 billion of energy companies' earnings in an attempt to provide our energy in the future: the energy companies or Obama's energy czar?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/ … idies.html

    1. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is no money to steal. It was never there. It was a ruse to wrest as many tax dollars as possible from taxpayers. It worked. But the money has been spent. All of it. Plus trillions more.

 
working