Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (17000)	4/18/2010 10:45:23 AM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Yes, absolutely. I think that perfectly describes the GOP. I really have no patience with this kind of rant. Both sides have their bogeymen. Opposite sides of the same coin. You can sit down and chat about current events, any topic, with most any total stranger and immediately tell where they sit on the political continuum. Your side's "tell" is the big bad corporation. Whatever the issue, liberals zero right in on that. Corporations may sometimes be the problem or a part of the problem, but they're not the cause of every problem. It's a visceral reaction that comes from distrust and hatred, not a logical one. I'm tired of the mindless shouting between drones on opposite sides. This utterly useless "our shit don't stink" attitude really turns me off. It takes both sides to screw up things this badly.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (17000)	4/18/2010 10:50:44 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

But let's look at the evidence for the GOP being bought and paid for by the oil companies. First, the GOP receives 3 times as much oil money than Dems: Yet, it doesn't bother you that Joe Biden received massive contributions from credit card companies before he spearheaded new bankruptcy legislation that would eliminate individuals to escape predatory credit card practices. That Chris Dodd (who took low-interest loans under a "VIP" program)is now trying to regulate the financial industry? The reality is that politicians receive campaign contributions. All of them. But we choose to call that "evidence" against one party or another only when we're representing the opposing views? Second, who were our leaders over the last decade? Cheney was a former Haliburton CEO. Bush Jr came from oil money. Jr's father was personal friends with the Saudi family. Look, it's just common sense. It may be "common sense" but there is nothing that is a "conflict of interests". None of these individuals had financial ties to these entities when they were in power. That is the criterion. I don't hear you complaining about Obama's relationship with Franklin Raines. I hear the talk about "oil industry subsidies" all the time but I really never looked at what, exactly, we're talking about. I suspect you haven't, either. Can you provide a breakdown of these massive 'subsidies' you claim exist? What I find is things like the SPR (which, if sold off today, the US would have PROFITED on, and which oil companies don't make money on). Things like sales tax exemptions which are costs saved by CONSUMERS, NOT oil companies. So, can you please list specific oil company subsidies along with with their costs that are actually subsidies received by the oil companies?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (17000)	4/19/2010 3:45:51 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 42652

You know how much money the Saudis have given Carter, Clinton and Gore? Obama will get more than all of them combined.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (17000)	4/19/2010 8:24:13 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

The subsidy totals in the pdf link you post are dubious, but I'll go with them for the moment. $72.5bil for fossil fuels compared to $29bil for renewable energy (but didn't you talk about an additional $80bil as part of the stimulus package?) means that renewable energy is far more subsidized than fossil fuels, because far less of it is produced. Each unit of energy from the alternatives is heavily subsidized, each unit of energy from fossil fuels, no so much. The market distortion from the fossil fuels subsidies is very small compared to the distortion from the alternative subsidies. Make the total of all fossil fuels we currently use cost an additional $72.5bil and we keep using the fossil fuels even if you retain the subsidies for the alternatives. Add $29 bil to the cost for the alternatives, or generally remove the subsidies and much of the investment in that energy starts to disapear, whatever you do with the fossil fuels subsidies. Focusing just on oil, I find it pretty hard to call it a subsidized area. Its a heavily taxed area. The government gets more money from oil than the oil companies do. "Clean coal" (if perhaps not plain old ordinary use of coal) is a different story.