the global warming swindle

stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2581581
I admit, that's a huge downfall of electric. My cousin works with a Fuel Cell design team and showed me a 200 kilowatt car that was really really fast but had nothing close to the throaty rumble you get from gas. If anything it sounded whiney as it went from 0 to 60 is less than 4 seconds. The stupid onboard computer won't even let the tires spin so you can't even get a good chirp out of the rubber.

Electric NASCAR would be like watching TV with the sound off.
a 1.21 gigawatt one will go back through time!
In all seriousness, I'm all for advancing technology, that is viable. But as one who buys into free trade and laisse fare economic policy. If there was truely viable and practical means to not use petroleum then by all means. I'm not one to protect the horse and buggy. But if the ideas being tossed around today worked compared to say the gasoline internal combustion engine. Then they wouldn't need government subsidies, and "earth is flat" style theory coupled with a massive propaganda campain, to bring them about.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2581639
a 1.21 gigawatt one will go back through time!
In all seriousness, I'm all for advancing technology, that is viable. But as one who buys into free trade and laisse fare economic policy. If there was truely viable and practical means to not use petroleum then by all means. I'm not one to protect the horse and buggy. But if the ideas being tossed around today worked compared to say the gasoline internal combustion engine. Then they wouldn't need government subsidies, and "earth is flat" style theory coupled with a massive propaganda campain, to bring them about.
ummm, good points except that you forget that gasoline is also subsidized by the government. I truly believe electric would be viable if they were allowed to bring lots of small nuke plants online.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2581730
ummm, good points except that you forget that gasoline is also subsidized by the government. I truly believe electric would be viable if they were allowed to bring lots of small nuke plants online.
yeah, but most of them are just tax breaks. That is a little different than a directly handing them money, that they didn't earn.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2581987
I don't see the difference but that's just me.
Would you go as far to say that the government is subsidizing your dependents? With the credit on your taxes. Or the interest on your house payment?
IThe money you earn is yours, what you keep isn't what the government has "graciously" decided to allow you to keep. The tax breaks are money they have generated, and they have earned, they have exposed themselves to risk for. Not the government. Thus in my mind a tax break isn't a subsidy. But a tax break.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2582006
Would you go as far to say that the government is subsidizing your dependents? With the credit on your taxes. Or the interest on your house payment?
IThe money you earn is yours, what you keep isn't what the government has "graciously" decided to allow you to keep. The tax breaks are money they have generated, and they have earned, they have exposed themselves to risk for. Not the government. Thus in my mind a tax break isn't a subsidy. But a tax break.


Just so you know, I am against giving tax breaks for dependents. I would much rather see the Feds spend less and give tax breaks by simply being a smaller, less expensive, entity. I don't fault anyone for taking them when offered but why pay someone to consume more government resources?
I do take the subsidy on my m o r t g a g e. I haven't a clue why it's there but I take all tax breaks given. What is the difference between taking $5000 off my taxes for having a m o r t g a g e or sending me a $5000 check because I took a loan out for a house? My bottom line reports it as equal money that I have and Uncle Sam doesn't have.
Remind me why the oil industry needs a tax break...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2582109

Just so you know, I am against giving tax breaks for dependents. I would much rather see the Feds spend less and give tax breaks by simply being a smaller, less expensive, entity. I don't fault anyone for taking them when offered but why pay someone to consume more government resources?
I do take the subsidy on my m o r t g a g e. I haven't a clue why it's there but I take all tax breaks given. What is the difference between taking $5000 off my taxes for having a m o r t g a g e or sending me a $5000 check because I took a loan out for a house? My bottom line reports it as equal money that I have and Uncle Sam doesn't have.
Remind me why the oil industry needs a tax break...
Because it is their money to begin with...
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2582344
Same for every other company that enjoys the privledge of doing business in the US. You don't believe they should pay their fair share?
Almost all of those taxes are passed onto you, a corporate tax is another tax that you end up paying for.

It isn't as if they aren't paying taxes. The majors here all have an effective tax rate over 40%. (those numbers are from CATO so take it with a small grain of salt. They have their agenda, but their numbers have been pretty good from the stuff I have referenced them on in school and stuff)
Why would we want to hurt a domestic corporation who is being successful, and directly employing domestically (not counting the support, manufacturing shipbuilding ect.) Some may not realise it, but they manufacture alot of stuff domestically, and that sector of manufacturing that is expanding. (you want to know why DFW and Houston are experiencing huge growth while many other places are not) Increasing costs by raising taxes would do that. What are the indirect costs associated with increasing taxes on major corporations such as a oil company? How is that going to effect the local economies? Why would we want to give a less efficient federal government control over that much more money? Exon Mobil made what 40 billion dollars last quarter or was it year? if they are running a 10-12% margin (which is about what they are running) that is 360 billion that they spend around the world and domestically, want to eradicate proverty let em find some oil...
Or we could let the government tax em more, "efficiently" use it for porkbarrel projects. to
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
You didn't really answer the question. Why should most other corporations be taxed at the full rate but oil industry be taxed at a lower rate? Ideally all corps should probably be taxed at lower rates but what is it about the oil industry that makes it special? I mean besides funneling money to politicians.
You also never really answered why it's OK for coal plants to throw tons of mercury into the air but CF bulbs are evil because they contain mercury.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
I think the Oil Companies get taxed on many levels, but I readily admit I'm not an expert on this.
Don't they get taxed on shipping, storing, drilling and refining? Along with selling it?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
If they drill on state or federal land they pay a lease fee as well as a royalty based on production. That is in addition to all the other fees, licenses, reclamation bonds they pay. They do get hit with taxes and fees on a lot of different levels.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2582733
You didn't really answer the question. Why should most other corporations be taxed at the full rate but oil industry be taxed at a lower rate? Ideally all corps should probably be taxed at lower rates but what is it about the oil industry that makes it special? I mean besides funneling money to politicians.
You also never really answered why it's OK for coal plants to throw tons of mercury into the air but CF bulbs are evil because they contain mercury.
If you can work the system, why not?
It isn't as if they don't give tax breaks to other companies. Others who can work the system.
Heck if you are in aggriculture those huge companies get billions, (I'm pretty much totally against redistribution type subsidies Because that just means we are funding lower prices overseas.) Where are the democrat lynch mobs going after ADM? Food prices are increasing at similar rates to oil. They are experiencing record profits in 4th quarter 07 they raked in 1/2 a billion dollars. Locally, people are whining because megastores like Bass Pro, and Cabellas got massive local tax breaks.
What makes them special, lobbiests, there is some national security issues with oil. But if they can work a deal out, why should we be jealous? Why not be happy for their deal, and hopefully other coporations can work out their own. The means is avaliable to anybody, if they have the money to buy the facetime.
As for coal plants, I don't hear coal plants as the answer to our "global warming." PC bulbs are, and are being mandated nationwide over the next few years.
 
morval

morval

Member
wow this is a crazy thread like debating religion or politics. i would like to commend bs21 for posting something that makes sense and read the book UNDER A GREEN SKY. all i have to add is no one says that humans started global warming, it was here before us and will be here after us. people are expediting the cycle and changing the climate faster than naturally would happen. unlike other climate changing factors we have no control over (comet/astroid impact, CME, gamma ray burst, etc) we can reduce our contribution to global warming and slow/reverse our impact on it. can we stop it no and we dont want it to stop completely it would be nice to have a little more time before the next ice age.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by morval
http:///forum/post/2584444
wow this is a crazy thread like debating religion or politics. i would like to commend bs21 for posting something that makes sense and read the book UNDER A GREEN SKY. all i have to add is no one says that humans started global warming, it was here before us and will be here after us. people are expediting the cycle and changing the climate faster than naturally would happen. unlike other climate changing factors we have no control over (comet/astroid impact, CME, gamma ray burst, etc) we can reduce our contribution to global warming and slow/reverse our impact on it. can we stop it no and we dont want it to stop completely it would be nice to have a little more time before the next ice age.
The earth is in a constant state of change. We aren't going to be able to significantly change it one way or the other with the "answers" like carbon credits, pc light bulbs, and hybrid cars. Come on get real. The problem is, this whole thing is a green issue, (well now the cool bills ahve a couple different colors on them but you get the point) There is no sincerity in the campain. Or else you would seen al gore buy a small house before someone called him on it. Or him not fly around the world in a private jet.
Just like Al Gore is invested in "carbon footprint" companies. Dupe a few suckers (who better than the cerebral holywood types) then pass it off as "universal." Wham you've got yourself a very good propoganda machine. It is an alchemist's dream.
Then you have the harm caused by these "earth first" crowd. Banning DTT, them trying to manage national forrests, (you ever read the history of yellowstone and their animal population controls)
Are they serious, the problem is, when you get morals out of the way, anything goes, like irresponsibly caring for your patch of earth, and not being good stewards of it.
It is all hype with no real intellectual backing.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2584886
It is all hype with no real intellectual backing.
You have to admit that investing heavily in Solar Stocks and Flourescent Bulbs then flying around in your private jet to convince the weak minded that they need to buy Solar Panels and PC light bulbs to save the world is rather ingenious.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2585205
You have to admit that investing heavily in Solar Stocks and Flourescent Bulbs then flying around in your private jet to convince the weak minded that they need to buy Solar Panels and PC light bulbs to save the world is rather ingenious.
No, it is saddening, to know that people are really that dumb. I had a huge discussion with my old boss one day at Radioshack. Now keep in mind she has a college degree, she is pretty smart, does a good job at running a failing business model, she drives a truck that gets 10 miles to a gallon. Then she came in after watching Gore's movie. (we liked to argue about everything) She knew I'm pretty conservative when it comes to alot of stuff and she is way out in left field. So she was all happy about having some ammo to finally get me, she would never win. Anyway after discussing the factual inaccuracies of the movie, and al gore's "do as I say not as I do policy" It always would boil down to, well even if it isn't true, we hopefully are spured to action by his sensationalized movie.
It wouldn't matter if God came down from heaven and showed her that she was wrong she still would have believed it. I don't understand the emotional draw to some of these issues. And they call the republicans the zelots. (she was a stats major) So I walked her through the statistics of it, and how the data is flawed imo. Then some algebra in much more detail that I brush on here. Where she basically admitted there is no way this would prove it. She didn't change her mind.
I don't understand the logic, if it is a fake, why would I still do what they lied to me to do?
I really wish Gore had disclosed his "green investments" at that time. That would have been the icing on the cake.
I especially love how well that correlates with the typical dismissal, oh well he is funded by oil companies.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2585205
You have to admit that investing heavily in Solar Stocks and Flourescent Bulbs then flying around in your private jet to convince the weak minded that they need to buy Solar Panels and PC light bulbs to save the world is rather ingenious.
The gov't reacts without thinking. They outlaw incandescent bulbs, then madate the use of Hg containing PCF bulbs. The gov't has no infrastructure in place to recover that Hg, they just put it in landfills.There in no definite scientific evidence that CO2 is changing the climate. There IS scientific evidence Hg is toxic, causes birth defects and brain damage. Why are we tradin one "problem" for another much bigger problem with heavy metal toxicity?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2585663
The gov't reacts without thinking. They outlaw incandescent bulbs, then madate the use of Hg containing PCF bulbs. The gov't has no infrastructure in place to recover that Hg, they just put it in landfills.There in no definite scientific evidence that CO2 is changing the climate. There IS scientific evidence Hg is toxic, causes birth defects and brain damage. Why are we tradin one "problem" for another much bigger problem with heavy metal toxicity?
He is admiring the swindle.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2585663
The gov't reacts without thinking. They outlaw incandescent bulbs, then madate the use of Hg containing PCF bulbs. The gov't has no infrastructure in place to recover that Hg, they just put it in landfills.There in no definite scientific evidence that CO2 is changing the climate. There IS scientific evidence Hg is toxic, causes birth defects and brain damage. Why are we tradin one "problem" for another much bigger problem with heavy metal toxicity?
Because it's politically correct. Just like it's more politically correct to garnish the roadways with bloated, stinking, rotting, Racoon corpses than to hunt Racoons to make fur coats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top