2007-11-14 07:15:40 · 12 answers · asked by El Duderino 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Or how about requiring them to spend their subsidies on alternative energy? That would give them a profit-driven motive, since they would hold patents on the discoveries.
2007-11-14 07:25:11 · answer #1 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I can't believe there are actually people on this board that believe oil companies deserve government subsidies and tax breaks. Exxon-Mobil had profits of $10 billion in the 2nd quarter of this year and $9 billion in the 3rd. There's no way they're going to make a serious bid to develope alternative energy when they're showing obscene profits like that. When their income drops to $2 or $3 billion then they'll be screaming for more tax breaks and subsidies. Disgusting.
2007-11-14 07:53:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First roll back clock to time when one Presidents wife got idea to run for the Senate and oil companies were allowed to conglomerate. Next see if subsides hurt or help competition. My gut feeling is the completion bring cleaner cheaper energy would increase talking subsidy off oil companies and giving it to start up companies in alternative fuel business other than ethanol. WOULD NEVER GIVE BIG ENERGY SUBSIDIES TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE FUELS OR SOURCES OF ENERGY.
2007-11-14 07:36:49 · answer #3 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it sounds like a good idea, but wouldn't it be a better idea to remove subsidies from the oil companies AFTER a viable alternative has been found?
2007-11-14 07:24:08 · answer #4 · answered by tangerine 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
regrettably, there is no longer something unlawful if congress votes it into regulation. It handed off interior the 70's. it may take place lower back. it quite is a handy political gadget to blame the oil agencies for customer and flesh presser failings. enable's blame somebody else. united statesnationwide interest. regrettably, Hillary isn't too clever. Neither exchange into her husband. yet they're the two lots extra clever than Georgy boy. i think it quite is an American occurrence to have somebody interior the White residing house who makes the traditional citizen appear as if a Rhodes student.
2016-10-16 12:45:52 · answer #5 · answered by holtzer 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No gas prices would sky rocket even higher in order to make us for the lost source of income. What we could do is cut some programs and earmarks encourage Americans to work and invest the saved money along with the new income into discovering alternate sources of energy and keep gas prices at bay for the time being.
2007-11-14 07:21:17 · answer #6 · answered by Tip 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Any smart investor is going to move to alternative energies, but don't be thinking oil companies are going to be losing any money anytime soon.
I bet Al Gore owns both.
2007-11-14 07:19:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The subsidies are very low and the economy makes up for it through more personal income spending by consumers. I do support its removal but it wont do anything.
2007-11-14 07:21:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes...Oil companies should get NOTHING, at all, in any way from government.
2007-11-14 07:28:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would at least cancel ALL subsides......why would we wanna subsidize the most profitable business in the world.
2007-11-14 07:30:38 · answer #10 · answered by amazed we've survived this l 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋