On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:48:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:52:45 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:43:56 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:06:08 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:39:19 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:58:58 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 23:51:08 -0400, wrote:


It is running a $85 billion dollar deficit and no plan to fix it,. How
is that not an immediate problem?


$85B? Why does that number sound familiar? I know, I know. It's the
big oil subsidy. Eliminate that, and we're good to go. What's more
important, big oil getting money it doesn't need or people getting
their Social Security? Hmmmm....

Cite that.

I lied. $52B in direct subsidized costs, plus $1.6T in related costs
of the fossil fuel industry.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

... or $10B

"In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel
subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually,"

Nice cherry picking tho.



So the range, without underlying infrastructre and related cost, per
year is, let's say in the middle... $32B. That of course, won't help
the Social Security situation if it were funneled to it. Is that what
you're claiming? Nice try.

When you read what they are trying to include in the "oil subsidy"
like keeping the shipping lanes are open you understand we would be
spending that money anyway.
The real subsidies are going to wind and solar and they are direct
payments or tax credits

So, you're claiming that all the big oil subsidies and all the
infrastructure that supports that is somehow equal to the paltry sums
that are used to subsidize wind/solar, two technologies that don't
pollute nearly as much and are completely renewable. Good god you're
so amazingly either right wing crazy or deliberately stupid just so
you can "win" the argument in your little brain (because you can't
"win" the argument with anyone who spends more than five minutes
looking up the actual facts).