GOP Debate Fact Check

[Ag with kids]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Rex Kramer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mcbrett]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Rex Kramer]

mcbrett I think you misunderstood me, but as always I appreciate the 19th century technology zinger. You know, I am positive that in the 1800's, oilmen were drilling 6,000 ' laterals with 20 stage frac jobs. I know that we are just simple minded folk with very low grade technology.

Anyway, what I was saying is that if you took away oil and gas as the nation's energy feedstock, then the economy would crater. I wasn't talking about the effects of ceasing production on the existing producers. I think even you can agree with this obvious point.

 

[mcbrett]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bronco]

Mcbrett- Is anyone on this thread or any thread I can recall on this topic against renewables? I have never seen it. 99% of folks welcome renewables with open arms. Not even too upset about govt funding for certain renewables.

All anyone is against is legislation designed to either punish one industry (like carbon taxes) or artificially prop up another (like feed in tariffs for solar).

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mcbrett]

Bronco- I'd say the OP shows the salesmanship used to win a primary or a cheap point. It's not a GOP monopoly for sure, but I'd be interested to see a comparison vs. the 2008 Obama/Clinton debates. If one says the AP is a biased, nonobjective source- they probably aren't going to like any source unless it agrees with their politics.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bronco]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mcbrett]

Bronco-

Let's agree to disagree. It's hard to discuss something with someone when you don't even acknowledge things that have been well settled years ago whether it be the science, externalities or the very idea that renewables can and are economic when and if done correctly- as you could see yourself if you drove 100 miles west of Austin towards Midland.

Secondly- google oil subsidies vs. renewable subsidies- the most profitable sector in the US is receiving 'help' from the govt, thanks to their lobbyists, in subsidies and other aid in multiples to what clean energy receives. That is a dollar fact- a number that isn't disputed, and easily found with a google search.

I'm done discussing with you however as your mind is made up for other reasons.

 

[Uninformed]

I couldn't find it in a google search. Will you post it here with a link at the end?

 

[Uninformed]

I just now found this:

Most of that was in the form of 23 different tax credits, especially the credit for overseas production ($15.3 billion) and a credit for production of non-conventional fuel ($14.1 billion). The rest was in the form of grants, R&D money, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Can you tell me more about these subsidies, specifically whether these are specific to the oil and gas industy or are more general in nature? Also let me know what this amounts to in the US in dollars per unit of energy. THX

 

[Rex Kramer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mcbrett]

You bore me Rex. If you have to lie to discuss something- that's sad. Buh bye.

 

[Rex Kramer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bronco]

mcbrett- We can certainly agree to disagree.

I'll just assume that you agree that the oil industry does not have any tax breaks that are unique to it. You bring this up all of the time and have never ever provided anything that says otherwise.

Regarding Midland, I'll just assume you are talking about wind farms. Without govt mandates that a percentage of energy be from renewable sources and agreements that force the utility companies to buy this energy at above market prices, wind and solar are bankrupt.

I actually am in favor of continued investment in renewables and I do not mind govt investment and madates. But dont act so ******* coy and sit here and try and say they are competitive right now. They aren't. They need govt loans and tax incentives and mandates to survive. I am alright with most of that as we need to look forward. But unilaterally punishing a specific industry that contributes billions of dollars of taxes and employs hundreds of thousands of people is just stupid.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mcbrett]

Bronco- here you go- I've already posted these before though. It just keeps getting said that they still don't exist. Plenty of other sources besides Bloomberg show this:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mcbrett]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Rex Kramer]

Actually you'd make a **** ton of money in Midland; you've displayed a glaring lack of knowledge for the per capita wealth of Midland, which used to boast the 2nd largest Rolls Royce dealership in either North America or the world.

mcbrett, you keep side stepping the inquiry about what I'm lying about. It's highly typical for you to get called out, and then respond that I'm the one resorting to third-grade insults, instead of actually addressing the topic at hand. Classic deflection, and very tiresome.

You might want to explain to bronco how your link provides any evidence that the tax breaks mentioned are unique to the oil and gas industry.

 

[Bronco]

mbrett- Those examples you give make my point. Those tax breaks you refer to are not at all unique to oil companies. That is the point. This is just stupid. Just because these companies make money is not a reason to take away tax options that exist in evry industry. Apple and Microsoft make a lot of money. Why don't we stop letting them deduct expenses from their taxes?

In reply to:

---

---

 

[dheiman]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Rex Kramer]

Regroup. It's okay. You'll fool a few people next thread.