Posted on 05/02/2011 7:46:36 AM PDT by La Lydia
If you think Obama's energy policy of suppressing our own oil industry while giving other countries taxpayer money to develop theirs is insane, just hope he doesn't inflict some of the truly deranged ideas being floated by moonbats like Daniel Weiss, senior fellow and director of "climate strategy" at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress:
"There's a few things we have to do to fight the recent spike in oil prices. … First, we need to crack down on speculators — make sure that they're not intentionally driving up prices in order to make a quick buck. Second, let's eliminate the $40 billion in subsidies [over 10 years] for big oil companies that are going to make overwhelming profits anyway." … Additionally, Weiss is pushing for more fuel-efficient cars, specifically vehicles that would get 60-plus miles per gallon by 2025. He's also advocating a limit, starting in 2013, on the amount of foreign oil the U.S. imports each year and reducing that total by 5% a year.
Cracking down on "speculators" was a favorite sport in the early days of the Soviet Union. It meant eradicating the last traces of free enterprise. Eliminating subsidies sounds good, but it sure won't lower prices. Any subsidies should be converted to permanent tax breaks, as the price of gasoline consists more of taxes than of profits for oil companies. Making cars more fuel-efficient means turning them into ever more dangerous death traps. Mandating a limit on imports while domestic supply remains suppressed means deliberately imposing economic recession or worse.
According to Weiss, making oil impossible to obtain will make inefficient and extravagantly expensive technologies like wind and solar "more economical than they are today" — not because they will cost any less, but because everything else will cost even more. The effect on our sputtering economy could be predicted even by a Democrat. There's more:
Weiss has also recommended that the White House consider selling up to 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and then invest the proceeds in public transportation and energy alternatives.
That is, we should cash in our emergency insurance policy and flush the money down useless boondoggles that enrich crony capitalists like Government Electric, who in turn bankroll Democrat politicians.
If you want to see where liberal energy policy inevitably and deliberately will lead, just have a nighttime look at the Korean peninsula ... http://www.moonbattery.com/KoreaNS.jpg
Remember Weiss is the "climate strategy" director. According to the make-believe beliefs of our liberal rulers, only by making the lights go out can we protect the sacred polar bears from changes in the weather, like they are doing in North Korea, where leftist ideology has reached full flower.
*”climate strategy” at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress*
None of these words go together.
“Climate strategy” plus the word “think tank” is entirely nonsensical!
“Climate strategy” and “American Progress” is an even worse contradiction.
The words “climate strategy” make all of my BS meters ping so hard that the needle gets bent and the alarms go on so long that the batteries wear out.
IMO, we don't need to be subsidizing oil companies to the tune of 40 Billion (or whatever, that sounds like a number pulled from thin air).
I think that we also don't need to be subsidizing Solar, wind, or whatever other energy, either. But I'd doubt this liberal fool would agree with me on that point.
Yes, they are saying that if we allow them to do all the stupid things they want to do, they can control the weather. Uh huh. And you need to get some solar batteries for that BS meter of yours.
Since oil companies pay more in taxes than they get to keep in profits, how is the claim of subsidizing true? It is only a liberal word game made up to get you to support higher taxes.
If we double your taxes, add a few special taxes for the work only you do, then offer a 5% tax credit, can we claim you are also subsidized?
(1) They're not subsidies, they're normal tax deductions (mostly). See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2713591/posts
(2) The number is $4 billion, not $40 billion.
(3) The ROI for oil companies is pathetic, about 8%. Most industries have a MUCH higher ROI. So let's cut that further and then be "surprised" when we have an "unexpected" energy shortage. That will help the economy!
(4) Yeah, let's raise the cost of energy MORE right now. THAT will help the economy. Oh, we can stop the eeevviiilllll oil companies from passing these taxes INCREASES (not cuts in subsidies -- that's obamaspeak) on to us? Sure, if we NATIONALIZE them, which is the real goal here.
So no, the clown in the article is dead wrong on this point, too. Obastard already has effectively nationalized auto manufacturing and health care, so the next big target is energy.
Good points. I thought that the “40 Billion” quoted in the article sounded made up. Additionally, the link that was provided gave excellent clarification on these “subsidies”.
Just realized my tone was a little too sarcastic. Second time that’s happened today.
Rest assured, the sarcasm was directed at obama and the “clown in the article,” not you.
That, and it’s a Monday and I’ve only has one cup of coffee, so my tone-meter is a little off...
Or we could just strengthen the dollar and watch oil prices drop. Nah, thats too easy.
Forgot to mention that I think you're right on this, BO's endgame is to nationalize the Oil Companies.
We saw how well that worked out with GM. Ford is currently wiping the floor with them, while the "Chevy Volt" is a complete non-starter (pun intended).
2012 isn't going to get here quickly enough. We might be decades getting out of the hole that the 2008-2010 administration dug for us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.