T1B

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 690a23ebbc

Good luck with that

I thought Mexico was going to pay for it, anyway?

"Who cares? He's not Hillary."

Sincerely,

Suckaholic

88 wrote:Funny thing. If you spend $18B for a wall. At the end, you still have a wall. But if you spend $80B on solar energy projects. At the end, you have jack shit. Go figure.

I'd rather waste $80 billion on solar energy projects than $18 billion on a wall. We should probably build more prisons too, right?

We should probably build more prisons too, right?
We might not need them if we didn't allow bad people into the country.

Wolfman wrote:We should probably build more prisons too, right?
We might not need them if we didn't allow bad people into the country.

88 wrote:Funny thing. If you spend $18B for a wall. At the end, you still have a wall. But if you spend $80B on solar energy projects. At the end, you have jack shit. Go figure.

"Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,[1][2][3] which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda."

Nice job comrade.

88 wrote:Funny thing. If you spend $18B for a wall. At the end, you still have a wall. But if you spend $80B on solar energy projects. At the end, you have jack shit. Go figure.

:? wtf short timer? Early onset?

88 wrote:Funny thing. If you spend $18B for a wall. At the end, you still have a wall. But if you spend $80B on solar energy projects. At the end, you have jack shit. Go figure.

Not sure wtf you’re talking about here. I spent $$$ a solar project and at the end I had a 5 kw solar system.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

88 wrote:
I'd rather waste $80 billion on solar energy projects than $18 billion on a wall.

No wonder we have such a divide in this country. Sadly there are plenty of dumbasses who share this view.

So all solar energy is a “waste?”
You people really need to find your way to the current century.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53322.pdf

Solar and wind aren’t viable without the massive subsidies they are offered.

The US government shouldn’t spend another dime on wind and solar subsidies. Solar generation technology has been around for decades. It isn’t going to get better in leaps and bounds. Same for wind generation technology. The private sector would drive enhancements if it was needed and profitable.

The US government could offer grants on battery research and technology. That area needs major development to make wind and solar commercially viable.

Jsc810 wrote:What about subsidies for oil and gas?

Should those be eliminated as well?

That’s different.

Jsc810 wrote:What about subsidies for oil and gas?

Should those be eliminated as well?

How can something be "eliminated" when it doesn't exist?

As much as moronic lefties love to spout on this, it actually reveals their level of how much they're informed... there's no such thing.

No oil/gas company has ever received a "subsidy."

You fucking idiot.

Now, if you want to talk about their TAX CODES (which aren't much different from any other business), then I'm all ears.

But if you spout outright lies, it makes you look every bit the snowflake hack you are.

The US government has never given a penny to oil/gas companies as a "subsidy." (The dictionary is your friend... idiot.)

Now, if you want to discuss lease rates for extraction from public lands... I'll likely agree with you, in that Big Oil should be paying a much higher rate than they currently do. We can debate what those rates should be, but IMO, they should be much higher.

But I don't need to tell outright lies to make my point, nor parrot moronic political talking points to make my case... why do you?


Idiot.

Not very good at arguing semantics, are you?
Favorable tax codes and rates, and other kinds of financial breaks, are all forms of subsidy.

You might try googling “indirect subsidy.”
Might also be a good idea to sober up before trying to reply.

Jsc810 wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

I don't want to argue semantics.

Gotta cut dins some slack. He sees himself as a stable genius.

Though Trump ran for office on a promise that Mexico would pay for a border wall, the spending plan indicates
American taxpayers would fund it for at least the foreseeable future.




Wow, who knew?

rotf...

The Feds should not subsidize oil and gas. That said they aren’t getting direct subsidies like solar and wind are.

On top of that almost nothing is taxed like oil and gas, and they pay some of the largest tax bills in this country.

88pedos,
Then why don't you vote that way?

Oh that's right you are just a pos cog.

Left Seater wrote:The Feds should not subsidize oil and gas. That said they aren’t getting direct subsidies like solar and wind are.

On top of that almost nothing is taxed like oil and gas, and they pay some of the largest tax bills in this country.

They pay it or we pay it?

Both.

Jsc810 wrote:Are you denying that the oil and gas industry gets government subsidies, by whatever name?

By whatever name? That is giving subsidies the broadest definition possible. You could put the gasoline pumped into the gas tanks of government K cars under the title of a subsidy since the taxpayer is funding it. Silliness.

88 wrote: The petroleum industry .

What could possibly go wrong?



You really are a fucking POS.

Moving Sale wrote:I really are a fucking POS.

Confession is good for the soul. Or so I've heard.