Apr 12, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Unworthyone wrote:

Apr 11, 2012 -- 4:57PM, Bodean wrote:

Well ... look at this way.  The enviro-commy dream of limiting population would be achieved, as half the people would starve.  The enviro-commy dream of reducing fossil fuel usage would be achieved, as nobody would be able to afford gasonline anymore. So .. what's your problem with it??

What happened?  You run out of bullets or what?

Ummmm no ... I"ve got plenty thankyou.  I mean .. do you really want me to respond, or are you just enjoying the joust? ... OK ...

Apr 12, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Unworthyone wrote:

OK, ok, I get it.  We subsidize the oil companies with taxpayer money to benefit the poor.

Correct .. without the subsidy they poor would not be able to afford gasoline

Apr 12, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Unworthyone wrote:

  And you are against that. ...

Coreect, I basically do not support subsidied but believe in free markets.  IF the poor cannot afford it, then the demand will go down, and the price will go down on its own.

Apr 12, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Unworthyone wrote:

.... because it is better to redistribute wealth via taxes, including taxes from the poor and working class, to give to the oil companies, so they can keep the price of gas affordable for the taxpayers, including the poor and working classes.  But you are against that as well ... hmm.

Maybe if you knew what you were talking about ..you'd reword the above sentence ....

From the American Thinker .... "It turns out that they are all tax "breaks."  I even hesitate to call them "breaks" because some of them amount to little more than Congress defining accounting terms such as "capital equipment."  And the total amount of earnings not collected in taxes (which liberals define as a "subsidy") is about $4 billion per year.  Here is how that breaks down"

1) Domestic manufacturing tax deduction -- $1.7 B.  This is a tax deduction given to every manufacturer in the US.

2) Percentage depletion allowance -- $1 B.  Any industry can write down a portion of the cost of its capital equipment as part of the cost of doing business.

3) Foreign tax credit -- $850 million. All companies get this "subsidy," not just oil companies.

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

www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/about_th...

It's kinda hard for me to answer your questions when they are based on a false premise.

Apr 12, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Unworthyone wrote:

And yet, the cost of gas continues to rise and the oil companies continue to post record profits.  Apparently, we need to increase the subsidies to the oil companies if we want to keep the prices down while helping them maintain record profits.

more false premise ... oil companies make a wopping 7 cents a gallon on gasoline ... the reason for the massive profits, is because we use so much of it.

Apr 12, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Unworthyone wrote:

What a great deal.  For every dollar the taxpayers provide to the oil companies, that's one less dollar they have to earn by producing oil.  Subsidies can result in less production, which keeps the prices up, because it does nothing to reduce demand, and that results in higher profits for every gallon of oil they do produce.

Again .. another false premise .. the price fluctuates due to "replacement factors" on the cost of a barrell.  Tax dollars have nothing to do with it.

Apr 12, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Unworthyone wrote:

Isn't this the same deal we have the American farmers?  We subsidize farmers not to grow crops to maintain the market prices, and we subsidize dairies to not produce milk for the same reason.  Then we pass out food stamps to help the poor afford the cost of food.  That's just dumb.  We need to get rid of food stamps, and simply increase the subsidies to farmers and ranchers to lower the price of food.

Those f'n socialists!  Thinking everyone ought to be able to afford to eat!  The free markets determine who gets to eat!  Don't they realize that once the demand for food goes down due to disease and starvation, the costs of food will go down?

More rant .... but I like it.  tit for tat.

Apr 12, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Unworthyone wrote:

Do you think tossing around epithets like 'enviro-commy' strengthens your argument?  Why not argue the merits, and just leave the schoolyard name-calling out of it?  Is that just too tough?

I just did.

Apr 12, 2012 -- 1:05AM, Unworthyone wrote:

Really, you say because I challenge your postion I want half the population to starve?  Or that reducing fossil fuel consumption is tantamount to 'making gasoline unaffordable to everyone'? 

It's really not about making gas "unaffordable" for everyone.  You need to adopt the European Model for that.  They TAX the crap out of Gasoline to account for all those non-existent cost of using fossil fuels.