Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 17, 2019

A new International Monetary Fund (IMF) study shows that USD$5.2 trillion was spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies in 2017.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

What are they? Name 1.

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-17 09:54 AM | Reply

Someone read it to me.

There's no pictures.

#1 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT

#2 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-06-17 10:01 AM | Reply | Funny: 9

So what?

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-17 10:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Someone read it to me.
There's no pictures.
#1 | POSTED BY SNIPER
#2 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood

Did I say that? Lets face it, You don't have an answer so you attack me. Typical lib.

#4 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-17 11:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 7 | Newsworthy 1

What are they? Name 1.

#1 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2019-06-17 09:54 AM | FLAG:

15% Percentage Depletion.

Immediate expensing under Section 263 of intangible drilling costs.

Code section 469(c)(3) treatment for passive investors to be able to write of investments as active investors.

There's three.

#5 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-06-17 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

"Renewables can't stand on their own. They wouldn't exist without subsidies."

"We should spend more on fossil fuel subsidies than we spend on education."

-- the same people

#6 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-06-17 12:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 12

So what?

#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

So you're a socialist now? Good to know!

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-06-17 04:07 PM | Reply

15% Percentage Depletion.
Immediate expensing under Section 263 of intangible drilling costs.
Code section 469(c)(3) treatment for passive investors to be able to write of investments as active investors.
There's three.
#5 | Posted by Nixon

You are funny gordo nix.

Those are NOT subsidies, they are tax breaks. Don't you know the difference? I guess you call all your tax deductions subsidies.

You are beyond funny.

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-17 05:18 PM | Reply

"A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction."

"Tax reduction."

www.investopedia.com

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 05:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The home heating oil you buy, with the red dye in it?
That's a subsidy.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 05:31 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

One does not 'spend' on subsidies.

#11 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-06-17 06:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction."

"Cash payment."

i.e., spending.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-17 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You forgot corporations getting tax refunds for payroll taxes withheld from employees' paychecks, or getting to claim credit for taxes withheld from employees against corporate profits.

These and many others are "subsidies". And you pay for them. That is why they must constantly print money that carries debt, which you also pay for. Corporations do not. ALL of the laws protecting corporations, including their convoluted accounting practices, are criminal under the US Constitution.
No entity can have any privilege above a citizen. Not even the government. All of this is in that document.

Corporations have no right to exist, they have no right of representation under the constitution.
And ALL of it is off the books.

$68,000,000,000,000.00 plus is the actual US debt load.

That's trillion with a T.

Morons

#13 | Posted by gitmboy at 2019-06-18 12:45 AM | Reply

The headline is fake news. First, they are only counting FEDERAL educational spending (not state) AND their definition of a subsidy is laughable. Why do progressives always need to lie?

#14 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-18 01:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

First, they are only counting FEDERAL educational spending (not state) AND their definition of a subsidy is laughable.

#14 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG A

Cool story, bro.

You conveniently left out the part that they are only counting FEDERAL fossil fuel subsidies spending (not state)

Why do regressives always need to lie?

#15 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-06-18 05:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You conveniently left out the part that they are only counting FEDERAL fossil fuel subsidies spending (not state)
Why do regressives always need to lie?

Most states allow the exact same subsidies on fossil fuels.

Some will limit some like PA will not allow all IDC costs to be deducted in the first year and NYS does not allow the magical percentage depletion that has basis in economic reality.

#16 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-06-18 08:46 AM | Reply

"Cool story, bro.
You conveniently left out the part that they are only counting FEDERAL fossil fuel subsidies spending (not state)
Why do regressives always need to lie?
#15 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD "

They count a whole lot more than federal fossil fuel subsidies - obviously you did not take the time to read the actual report. With you now educated on the subject - the US spends almost $700B/year on education including state and local spending - excluding private school education. Given that they ignored over 90% of what the US spends on education - this headline is an outright lie. Fake News - typical of the Progressive Press.

#17 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-18 08:50 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Yap.

Forbes is a real left wing rag.

#18 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-06-18 09:03 AM | Reply

Garbage story that shows you can prove virtually anything by cherry picking numbers. Not surprising the author is an environmental activist. It's anyone guess where they come up those incredible numbers like $649 billion in 2015.

"According to a 2015 estimate by the Obama administration, the US oil industry benefited from subsidies of about $4.6 billion per year.["

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-06-18 09:10 AM | Reply

""According to a 2015 estimate by the Obama administration, the US oil industry benefited from subsidies of about $4.6 billion per year.["
#19 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN "

Read the report - it is laughable. The main argument is we pay too little for fuels to cover health care effects and global warming - so we need to add $35/ton of CO2 to come up with an 'efficient' price. They then look at energy usage tacking on this completely fictitious $35/ton in efficiency loss. They DO NOT mean actual subsidies as in government direct spending or tax breaks - which is why the comment by MrSilence is completely misplaced - thinking that there are state and federal subsidies that are mutually exclusive when 90%+ of the number they consider a subsidy is made up out of whole cloth. Yes, liberals are that dumb that they continually fall for this garbage.

It reminds me of times when the DoD was audited and have like $5T unaccounted for - the moron libs on here think there is a treasure chest with $5T in it somewhere....laughable.

#20 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-18 09:40 AM | Reply

$5.2 trillion in 1 year?

According to this, Total federal spending in 2017 was $4 trillion:

www.cbo.gov

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-18 10:44 AM | Reply

The home heating oil you buy, with the red dye in it?
That's a subsidy.
#10 | Posted by snoofy

Do you know what the red dye signifies? There is no highway tax on it.

So, if you are right, everyone that heats with fuel oil is getting a subsidy.

#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-18 01:13 PM | Reply

or a tax reduction."
"Tax reduction."
www.investopedia.com
#9 | Posted by snoofy

Like I said sno ... ... .. you are getting a subsidy. HAVE YOU THANKED TRUMP?

#23 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-18 01:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

HAVE YOU THANKED TRUMP?

#23 | Posted by Sniper

For what?

What did humpy have to do with it?

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-18 02:42 PM | Reply

I guess you call all your tax deductions subsidies.

#8 | Posted by Sniper

What do you call your deductions gordo nix?

#25 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-18 04:36 PM | Reply

Why do progressives always need to lie?
#14 | Posted by iragoldberg

They think that is their right and job.

#26 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-06-18 04:37 PM | Reply

#20; if you're going to troll this website, Ruskie, maybe if you don't choose the username Internet Research Agency Goldberg, you'll have more success.

#27 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-06-18 04:55 PM | Reply

You are beyond funny.

#8 | Posted by Sniper

You are beyond stupid.

#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-18 05:15 PM | Reply

What do you call your deductions gordo nix?

#25 | Posted by Sniper

If you give someone a tax deduction in one hand and then steal that or more from the other hand with tariffs (tax) what do YOU call it?

I call it a lie. More specifically it is called a bait and switch and does nothing to help me but does wonders for widening the inequality gap.

Remember when they said, "The resulting increase in taxable incomes would reduce the revenue loss arising from the legislation by $186 billion from 2018 to 2027 (around 13 percent)."? (no you don't)

Not that is some funny stuff, huh?

And apparently you are dumb enough to fall for all of that crap.

#29 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-06-18 05:24 PM | Reply

"Tax expenditures" are subsidies delivered through the tax code as deductions, exclusions, and other tax preferences. ... Tax expenditures reduce the amount of tax that households or corporations owe."

www.cbpp.org

#30 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-06-18 10:17 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort