Final Debate

No it doesn't disappear.

It just gets loaded onto tankers from lunatic countries and only occasionally spills millions of gallons directly into the ocean.

Sounds like a brilliant plan.

 

So, you are another who dislikes welfare for people, but are all to happy to give to large multinational corporations.

Explain why.

 

We've been running out of gas next year since the 60's.

There's no reason we can't continue on fossil fuels while we work on renewable energy technology.

The only thing your plan will accomplish is heavily polluting countries like China using more coal and oil than they do now.

How did it work out in Germany, hmm?

 

So they need government money to prevent that? Yea right.

 

So the world is going to end if we don't reduce carbon emissions. We have some of the lowest carbon emissions in the world and they are steadily decreasing. China has some of the highest, but the get a "pass" from the United Nations to increase their emissions for another decade before even starting to think about any reductions. And China is patted on the back for being "ambitious".

China pollutes the world while Americans get taxed into poverty.

...and none of this sounds like a taxation scam, or a global plan for widespread redistribution of wealth and resources?

Also, China lies.

 

Trump did so well, that anyone who was uncertain about voting for him will probably vote for him now. And his core support will be even more enthusiastic.

 

I wonder how our kids and grandkids will feel when we rack up so much debt that the IMF changes the currency base from the U.S. Dollar to the more stable Chinese Yuan, and they tell our future generations that China owns us until we repay the trillions we owe?

Some of you really can't see through to the real globalists' plan to manage the world.

 

Poor people never created addition jobs. Corporations hire workers.

Government can give a person a subsistence check and that's as far as it goes. That person does not contribute to GDP.

Government can subsidize a corporation and that money "expands" into jobs, products and GDP. Maybe the corporation will even offer a job to the welfare bum so he'll stop sucking off the system.

 

The question is not so much about how much the subsidies are, but rather how much they reduce to price of a barrel of oil The subsidies only amount to a few cents and are in the noise. Eliminating the subsidies do not not significantly change the relative cost of oil versus renewables.

 

You are the 1st I've seen claim the world will end. I haven't heard that, so I doubt the world will end.

Sure we have some of the lowest. It's why I said we are leaders. And we shouldn't stop being leaders.

I doubt China gets a pass. Where do you get this info from?

In a recorded video message to the un General Assembly on September 22nd, China’s leader, Xi Jinping, made a surprise announcement. He said that as well as aiming to halt the rise of its carbon emissions by 2030—much the same goal as five years ago—China would strive for “carbon neutrality” by 2060.
https://www.economist.com/china/202...-net-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-zero-by-2060

 

So poor people get no help to eat and live because they don't create jobs? Wow.

Corporations can hire those poor people, why don't they? And give livable wages to them. Since you are for corps getting welfare, they should use that welfare to help those poor people you don't want to help.

If the company is a good profitable company, like the well established oil industry, there's no reason for them go get welfare. Unless as I stated above, the give those poor people jobs.

Demand provides jobs and expansion.
If poor people have more money, the spend it to live and buy more products that use oil.

 

So why give welfare then, to well established highly profitable companies?

No one can explain why?
Lonestar girl tried, but I don't buy it gives more jobs. Demand supplies jobs and money that expands into more jobs.

 

AOC, future leader of the Democrat Party said the world is going to end, and "This is our World War II." It planned political panic. It's a tax scam.



We are the world leader in reducing emissions. Why should the government step in, impose taxes, and screw with our success? ...because if you elect them then you give them permission to rob more money out of peoples' paychecks. This hurt the poor the most, when gasoline and electricity prices skyrocket. Let's just keep leading by private innovations and technological advancements. Don't fix what isn't broken.

China is not buying into the Global Warming nonsense. Of course they get a pass. They wouldn't comply if someone tried to force them. China takes care of China First and Only China.

 

No poor person has every signed my paycheck. How 'bout you? That is not the same as saying they don't deserve to live. Nice word-twist though.

I'm not generally for corporate subsidies. Exceptions are made for producers who make products that we cannot live without, like food and oil. We have really inexpensive and abundant food and oil, thanks to those subsidies on basic necessities. That helps feed the poor eat and live.

 

I am smart. I don't listen to AOC. I bet you don't either. LOL.
I don't even get the opportunity to vote on her. So I don't care what BS she spouts.

Why should the gov't step in?
The stepped in back in the 1960s and 70s. When pollution in the country was destroying the country.
Rivers would catch fire.
Acid rain falling from the sky.

We need to curb pollution.

LOL. I just posted and linked an article on China and their carbon neutral plans.
And you just give your opinion they are getting a pass?

Come on, you're better than that.

 

I have no idea. For whatever reason, it does not appear to amount to much. However the issue, as I remember, was the competitiveness of oil versus renewables.

 

The last time some government idiot tinkered with gasoline taxes in the name of "green", gasoline cost more than double what it is today. That was a punitive carbon tax on every citizen who drives.

Trump has said that by increasing production and making us energy independent, the money saved by consumers is the same as a tax break. He's right. If you use 5 gallons of gasoline per week at $1.60 versus $3.80, that's $11.00 a week or $572.00 per year savings.

Who pays for increased taxes on corporations? The end user and consumer of the product. Decreasing corporate subsidies will also increase consumer prices.

 

But poor people spend money. They need to eat, clothe, and have shelter. And consume products that use said oil.

 

The oil companies been getting subsidies since at least the 1970s. Long before any renewables were gaining traction.
If a new budding market, I can see subsidies to give incentive to invest into a new market. The oil market is a well established industry.

 

We either quit cold turkey or keep buying it. So we keep buying it. From who, if not our own workers? If from our own workers, we subsidize it. If we don't subsidize it, we import it.

You're doing a lot of complaining about it but not offering up any alternatives for what to do until we have viable renewables in place.

 

Germany will be energy independent and on 100% green energy when we still drive our gas-guzzling SUVs. Let's see who is laughing then.

 

Maybe you should care about the idiot, because if Biden wins, dumb-dumb will be extremely powerful. These people are going to be crawling all over him to wrest power. Biden doesn't have the cognitive efficiency any more to be able to stand up to anyone.



https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/poli...campaign-task-force-climate-change/index.html

 

So what are you doing to lessen your dependence on oil? Is your home running on windmill or solar? Are you using horse and buggy for transportation? Heating with wood? I've noticed that most who complain about our dependence on oil still won't lessen their own usage until they are forced to. No one is stopping you from doing your part now.

 

1) That's nuts.

2) Oil doesn't deserve welfare.

3) I've talked about it before. You guys don't pay attention. You need a plan, and an incremental Carbon Tax.

 

Reducing the political to the personal is a lazy hypocrisy.