Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Payola for the Most Profitable Corporations in History
And Why Taxpayers Shouldn’t Stand for It Any More
Along with “fivedollaragallongas,” the energy watchword for the next few months is: “subsidies.” Last week, for instance, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez proposed ending some of the billions of dollars in handouts enjoyed by the fossil-fuel industry with a “Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act.” It was, in truth, nothing to write home about -- a curiously skimpy bill that only targeted oil companies, and just the five richest of them at that. Left out were coal and natural gas, and you won’t be surprised to learn that even then it didn’t pass.
Still, President Obama is now calling for an end to oil subsidies at every stop on his early presidential-campaign-plus-fundraising blitz -- even at those stops where he’s also promising to “drill everywhere.” And later this month Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders will introduce a much more comprehensive bill that tackles all fossil fuels and their purveyors (and has no chance whatsoever of passing this Congress).
Whether or not the bill passes, those subsidies are worth focusing on. After all, we’re talking at least $10 billion in freebies and, depending on what you count, possibly as much as $40 billion annually in freebie cash for an energy industry already making historic profits. If attacking them is a convenient way for the White House to deflect public anger over rising gas prices, it is also a perfect fit for the new worldview the Occupy movement has been teaching Americans. (Not to mention, if you think about it, the Tea Party focus on deficits.) So count on one thing: we’ll be hearing a lot more about them this year.
But there’s a problem: the very word “subsidies” makes American eyes glaze over. It sounds so boring, like something that has everything to do with finance and taxes and accounting, and nothing to do with you. Which is just the reaction that the energy giants are relying on: that it’s a subject profitable enough for them and dull enough for us that no one will really bother to challenge their perks, many of which date back decades.
By some estimates, getting rid of all the planet’s fossil-fuel subsidies could get us halfway to ending the threat of climate change. Many of those subsidies, however, take the form of cheap, subsidized gas in petro-states, often with impoverished populations -- as in Nigeria, where popular protests forced the government to back down on a decision to cut such subsidies earlier this year. In the U.S., though, they’re simply straightforward presents to rich companies, gifts from the 99% to the 1%.
If due attention is to be paid, we have to figure out a language in which to talk about them that will make it clear just how loony our policy is.
Start this way: you subsidize something you want to encourage, something that might not happen if you didn’t support it financially. Think of something we heavily subsidize -- education. We build schools, and give government loans and grants to college kids; for those of us who are parents, tuition will often be the last big subsidy we give the children we’ve raised. The theory is: young people don’t know enough yet. We need to give them a hand when it comes to further learning, so they’ll be a help to society in the future. From that analogy, here are five rules of the road that should be applied to the fossil-fuel industry.
- Don’t subsidize those who already have plenty of cash on hand. No one would propose a government program of low-interest loans to send the richest kids in the country to college. (It’s true that schools may let them in more easily on the theory that their dads will build gymnasiums, but that’s a different story.) We assume that the wealthy will pay full freight. Similarly, we should assume that the fossil-fuel business, the most profitable industry on Earth, should pay its way, too. What possible reason is there for giving Exxon the odd billion in extra breaks? Year after year the company sets record for money-making -- last year it managed to rake in a mere $41 billion in profit, just failing to break its own 2008 all-time mark of $45 billion.
- Don’t subsidize people forever. If students need government loans to help them get bachelor’s degrees, that’s sound policy. But if they want loans to get their 11th BA, they should pay themselves. We learned how to burn coal 300 years ago. A subsidized fossil-fuel industry is the equivalent of a 19-year-old repeating third grade yet again.
- Sometimes you’ll subsidize something for a sensible reason and it won’t work out. The government gave some of our money to a solar power company called Solyndra. Though it was small potatoes compared to what we hand over to the fossil-fuel industry, it still stung when they lost it. But since we’re in the process of figuring out how to perfect solar power and drive down its cost, it makes sense to subsidize it. Think of it as the equivalent of giving a high-school senior a scholarship to go to college. Most of the time that works out. But since I live in a college town, I can tell you that 20% of kids spend four years drinking: they’re human Solyndras. It’s not exactly a satisfying thing to see happen, but we don’t shut down the college as a result.
- Don’t subsidize something you want less of. At this point, the greatest human challenge is to get off of fossil fuels. If we don’t do it soon, the climatologists tell us, our prospects as a civilization are grim indeed. So lending a significant helping hand to companies intent on driving us towards disaster is perverse. It’s like giving a fellowship to a graduate student who wants to pursue a thesis on “Strategies for Stimulating Donut Consumption Among Diabetics.”
- Don’t give subsidies to people who have given you cash. Most of the men and women who vote in Congress each year to continue subsidies have taken campaign donations from big energy companies. In essence, they’ve been given small gifts by outfits to whom they then return large presents, using our money, not theirs. It’s a good strategy, if you’re an energy company -- or maybe even a congressional representative eager to fund a reelection campaign. Oil Change International estimates that fossil-fuel companies get $59 back for every dollar they spend on donations and lobbying, a return on investment that makes Bernie Madoff look shabby. It’s no different from sending a college financial aid officer a hundred-dollar bill in the expectation that he’ll give your daughter a scholarship worth tens of thousands of dollars. Bribery is what it is. And there’s no chance it will yield the best energy policy or the best student body.
These five rules seem simple and straightforward to me, even if they don’t get at the biggest subsidy we give the fossil-fuel business: the right -- alone among industries -- to pour their waste into the atmosphere for free. And then there’s the small matter of the money we sink into the military might we must employ to guard the various places they suck oil from.
Simply getting rid of these direct payoffs would, however, be a start, a blow struck for, if nothing else, the idea that we’re not just being played for suckers and saps. This is the richest industry on Earth, a planet they’re helping wreck, and we’re paying them a bonus to do it.
In most schools outside of K Street, that’s an answer that would get a failing grade and we’d start calling subsidies by another name. Handouts, maybe. Freebies. Baksheesh. Payola. Or to use the president's formulation, "all of the above."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
42 Comments so far
Show AllEvery major branch of the United States government is hopelessly corrupt almost beyond repair because any changes must come from the same lawmakers that have rigged things for their own benefit for so long it is impossible to imagine them suddenly having pangs of conscience.
Lets be clear - the Bill DID pass 51-47!!
See below:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00063
However due to the Republicans repeated abuse of the filibuster to thwart US democracy nothing is allowed to pass they do not like unless it has 60 votes.
Wimpocrats could have changed this at the beginning of the term by throwing out the idiotic Senate rules which allow any Senator to raise a finger to invoke a
"filibuster", get a vote on that and then saunter across the Street to wine and dine with a lobbyist celebrating yet another success for the 1%!
Instead was proposed a return to the old rules of "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" when a Senator had to actually speak the whole time for a filibuster and which also would have provided for periodic confirmations by the filibusters allies who had to BE THERE that the filibuster would go on.
Guaranteed if these rules had been adopted requiring actual work and being on the Senate floor to really filibuster the Republicans would drop that tactic like a hot potato. Unless it involves thousands of $$$ from their owners and rubber chicken dinners, they would not want to actually have to show up and filibuster.
"The president's formulation"?
Please! Why in the world would you quote a man who has continued to betray us on everything he promised to change? I'm a loyal fan of your beautiful prose, Bill McKibben. Your words celebrating nature have brought me to my knees they're so moving. But I am NOT, however, any fan of yours when it comes to your continued enabling and codependency with President Obama. He's NOT on the side of the Earth. Obama is on the side of big money, which by the way, happens to include our big oil, coal and natural gas companies. Many posters in here, including myself, have called Obama on what he does best: he's a brilliant orator who makes empty promises. How is it you can't see that?
When you come out and declare yourself unwilling to support Obama anymore, I just might start paying attention to you again. I'm definitely on the side of the Earth, the animals, the humans struggling to survive; I'm even on your side Bill McKibben when it comes to nailing these asshole gas, oil and coal companies. But for God's sake, NO MORE OBAMA. Please wake up! This is an election year so saying anything to get elected is what he does best. (For that matter they're all guilty of that duplicity.) If we want change we're all going to have to break away from the status quo, aka, the two party system, and step outside the box and do it differently this time.
Elizabeth Tjader,
Not quite a "co"-dependency, but more like a unipolar dependency. McKibben can't give up on Obama because support for Obama has become part of his self-image and self-worth. Obama doesn't need McKibben, but McKibben needs Obama.
McKibben, like all pro-Obama pseudo-progressives, makes no mention of the most environmentally destructive human activity -- war -- or that his idol, Barack the Baby Killer, could end almost all wars in the world today with a stroke of his pen The USA has started and continues to fight almost every war in the world today, burning more fuel than any other organization, spreading radioactive toxins wherever it goes.
To me, McKibben's support for Obama makes him into a virulent racist hater of Muslims, just like Barack the Baby Killer. McKibben should denounce Obama.
What about the tar sands, Bill? Not one word about them in this article.
Birdbrain, the man's politics are NOT the only gauge from which to judge his contributions. This castigation is unfair (not to mention rigid)!
"Either way, McKibben is doing more harm than good."
Sure, it would be great if every member of Green Peace, The Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, et al. defected from the Democratic Party to help create a massive groundswell of Other, i.e. a powerful 3rd party. Until then, since so many feel TRAPPED by the 2-party system that does its utmost to maintain its monopoly on voting, let's be HONEST about the man's LIFELONG commitment to one of the most pressing problems of our times!
The oil subsidies are a valid attack strategy. Add these to the billions lost in overseas tax shelters, the money the MIC cannibalizes on wars of aggression added to unnecessary, expensive weapons, the money LOST in foreign "theaters" of war, and all other forms of graft and corruption and there'd be no major Deficit problems! (And I didn't even go into the regulation of Wall Street aspect, the biggest hole in the fiscal dam making a mockery of any discussions of budget cuts until Glass-Steagall is restored.)
P.S. I noticed that you and Glenn Ford (and possibly others) have decided to use the ASTROLOGICAL adage, "As above, so below." While it may work as a political metaphor, I'd like its ORIGINAL meaning to be noted. Too often I've seen ideas I've introduced to this forum co-opted. Thank you for the attribution in another thread.
And Obama just signed into law the Jumpstart Old Bankster Speculation Act to allow
the Banksters funding him like Goldman Sachs, to fund "small" startups of a $1 Billion
without any accounting for their actual business prospects!
Hooray!
So much for financial regulation....
Purity can go too far.
Glenn Greenwald got a lot of flack for his columns on Ron Paul. He was clear that Paul was bringing up issues that are not on the table in the debate between the two factions. It takes a debate between the two factions, republicans and democrats, to get an issue on the table. When they don't bring up an issue, it goes away.
Ron Paul was bringing up issues, like wars, that were not on the table.
Glenn has an interview with Rachel Maddow today that supports her new book because it can get the conversation about militarism going in our country.
Bill McKibben has been incredible in getting the over riding issue of the day, the environment, on the public discussion. He is leading a heroic effort at 350.org.
He may be a little too kind to Obama, but when the largest polluter ( next largest these days, I guess China has that title now), and the largest economy, and an important international player, the USA, needs to change course. If Obama can help to pull that off, that is great.
The massive denial needs to be countered with a massive educational effort.
We are a country that the top environmental scientist, James Hansen, makes the news in handcuffs.
I tend to agree with Morris Berman who blames the American people. We are a nation of hustlers. If you want an accurate, but very strongly negative, assessment of America, check out his trilogy with the very recent volume titled "America Failed."
In his 2006 book, "Dark Ages America: The final phase of empire" he says that when an empire is on the way down they choose leaders who speed up the fall. Reading that in the age of W Bush, it fit perfectly. Well, the clock as turned, and Obama continues on the W Bush path to hasten the decline of the empire in many ways. When he does some good things, we need to congratulate him and encourage him to move beyond the corporate masters.
Don: I'm with you, and agree wholeheartedly with your post until your 2 concluding paragraphs. Like others on this site, there is this need, or is it a reflex (?) to blame citizens for "who" they vote for.
If we look at life through a VERY limited frame, that could be seen as true on its surface. But the variables that substantially influence that frame include 2 significant items:
1. The control of the masses and their understanding of the key issues of our day due to the powerful hypnotic reach of an omnipresent mass media. (And there, too, employed within its reserves are experts in the ways and means to use images, sounds, subliminals, and buzz words to rally "consent" for the issues preferred by the MSM corporate owners.)
2. The vote allows for a very limited choice pool. Presidential elections now cost about $1 billion. That's one fucking expensive bidding war. Obviously anyone who comes up with such a sum is either already a part of the 1% or due to funding (disguised as "campaign contributions") will necessarily become beholden to it.
With these 2 factors running the metrics, how then does the result become "average Joe Public's" fault?
And if the come-back line is "s/he should have been better informed!" Try that on when you're:
1. Wrestling with a painful medical issue
2. Trying to hold onto a job and keep food on the table in an economy pitted against workers
3. A single-parent tasked with earning a living and preparing kids for school, added to making meals, shopping, keeping up the home and the auto in working condition
4. A fundamentalist BRAINWASHED to vote on the basis of "faith," or what the congregation leader defines as moral
5. A person taught to believe The News and trust in brand names like CNN, Democrat, Republican, etc.
I am tired of posters blaming those who have been led, like mesmerized sheep, into a pen of confusion, and then told THEY are responsible for what's enacted through the misuse of leadership and all the other sins done in their names.
It's the political equivalent of the rapist saying to his unwilling victim, "C'mon honey, you know you want it." NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
POWER must be held to account!
To buy into the inverted narrative, then all of the following become plausible:
Workers are responsible for jobs moving overseas
Feminists are responsible for sexism
Teachers are responsible for the poor performance seen in test results that issue from economically depressed neighborhoods
Mexican Americans are responsible for the low-wage economy
Terrorists are responsible for 911 and the wars that followed
Etc. Ad nauseum!
Siouxrose,
Whatever McKibben's contributions, his continued support for Obama negates them all. By supporting Obama, he supports perpetual actual war against Muslims and perpetual class war against the rest of us.
McKibben supports Obama no matter what. Like Abraham, he would sacrifice his child for a vengeful god.
Love ya Tom,
But..."Whatever McKibben's contributions, his continued support for Obama negates them all."
All the good this man has attempted to do is negated? Because of his political preferences?
Interesting position. One I certainly could not support.
Take care of yourself, Tom
Thomas Gilbert-
I concur, Dante.
Tom, often I find you willing to argue on the unpopular side of issues. And that is admirable. However, it really tends to be an adjunct of male psychology and its particular form of logic to see matters through a linear prism. This linearity presupposes a left and right, yes and no, either or, as well as right and wrong.
Consider using the frame of LIGHT itself in witnessing how the spectrum actually curves to eventually meet itself in the rainbow. (That formation is how a rainbow is encountered from above the earth, say from a plane.)
In other words, not only can more wisdom be gleaned from nuance, Americans, in general, must depart from the fixed stances that signify rigid allegiances to alleged, absolute positions of right and wrong. Borrowing from today's article by Koehler, given the violent footprint our nation has invoked upon much of the world, it's time to practice more compassion and empathy and less judgment in its lust for blood.
I would not vote for Obama, and I hope that Mr. McKibben (along with others many in this forum rally against) has his own political wake-up call. Still, to suggest that HE is guilty for what Obama and the elites do in all of our names is a rather ridiculous allegation. As an attorney, you know that a sentence is based on direct action and direct motive. I refuse to carry the castigation that the entire nation is damned. In fact, the contention of the OWS movement itself is that decisions are being made by the 1% that the rest of us pay for in numerous ways.
And you know me well enough to know I am hardly giving the Obamination a pass. His karma will be SEVERE... the betrayal, not only to citizens of this nation, but for much of the world, is something I have trouble wrapping my imagination around.
............"male psychology".................
???????????????
Someone is making generalizations, that sounds prejudicial.
It's great to know we have such "distinguished visitors" to this forum that "human nature" is simply "people are no good." Sometimes "It's not what you know, it's what you know that just ain't so" as Will Rogers used to say.
As to heroes, we can all be heroes. Since when do the power elites have the right to say who can and can't be a hero. Look up how a local seafood company's employees in Scotland became local heroes. It's in all us.
I must state I stand with tom here. Mckibben to me has no credibility as long as he supports Obama just as Thomas Jefferson had none as long as he supported slavery.
It just more of that lessor of two evils crap and the nonsense spouted that one must compromise ones own principles in order to achieve a given goal.
What Mr Mckibben is in essence stating is he is willing to look the "other way" as far as issues such as wars in Afghanistan are concerned or the NDAA or the erosion of Civil liberties, just as long as HE gets HIS way on the environment.
Mckibben MUST divorce himself from his support of Barack Obama.
An example of this came up before and while I am not comparing Mr Mckibben to the Ku Klux Klan it is this. "Would you stand alongside the Ku klux Klan over the issue of erosions of the rights enunciated under the Bill of rights because those issues important to you"?
I would NOT.
Thus while Mckibben is a strong and vocal supporter of the environment which *I* am as well, I can not stand with him when he continues to support Barack Obama. This does not suggest Mckibben GUILTY of what Barack Obama does when Obama drops bombs on children in Pakistan. It means he means he willing to IGNORE that for the sake of his own politics.
I can not go there. Some things MUST be absolute. There are some things one can NOT compromise on.
GW,
You know I have great respect for your opinions here on CD. That is a given. A place to hang your hat.
Some people believe that reform is possible from within the democratic party. Does that make them child rapists? War criminals? Deserving of negation?
There is a major difference between your comment and the comment presented by Tom. Tom rejected the good ( based on political affiliation). You upheld the good but rejected the doer of good (based on political affiliation). You acknowledged the good. He negated the good. (denial of existence ) Somehow, in his logic, the good no longer exists. That is what I was attempting (in the vulgar) to get at.
You never negated the good. (denied the existence of )
GW, actually you are not "standing with Tom on this one."
Take care of yourself.
Thomas Gilbert-
I'm going to borrow from two metaphysical precepts to answer your post. First, the law of karma. The premise is not a black or white narrow operational principle. Each individual is held to account at their level of both understanding AND complicity. So I hear your point, and yet the entire contribution a human being makes is not erased because they could not do more in one particular venue. Our times are borderline fascist lock-down, after all. There's no Superman/woman on the horizon to fix all that needs fixing.
As much as I'd like to see some key thinkers on the left blow the whistle on the whole 911 inside job, the fact that most don't doesn't make me value their political contributions in other areas less. We humans are imperfect facets of the Divine... particles of awareness that are here to grow and learn THROUGH experience.
The other metaphysical vector is that of astrology. Having read charts for 40 years, it is very clear to me how Edgar Cayce's statement (based on the legacy of the soul), "That entity is meeting self" factors into the current lifetime's blueprint. What this shows is that each individual has generally at least one area that's highly developed, it may be mechanics or martial arts, while other areas of personal development require far more work... or soul advancement.
This same type of compartmentalization can be seen in someone like McKibben. His understanding of--and commitment to--green LIFE SAVING technology is so overwhelming that his political astuteness is neglected.
Like Michael Moore, Robert Reich, Bill Moyers and others who still endorse the Democratic party, this duopoly phenomenon is set in stone for some people. Several of the long-established mechanisms of our culture dovetail into far deeper embedded memes that key into, or are relative to one's (original) tribe.
Since I believe "The Truth Shall Set Them Free," I am more concerned about getting the Truth out there... in a number of venues, then slaying the messenger who's picked up the torch in one area (while being remiss in others). Perhaps with Obama's repeated sell-outs as seen in the latest, his pretending to NOT sign on with the Canadian tar sands/Keystone project, only to make an end run right there... McKibben will consider aligning with OWS and helping to lead a movement that will make a 3rd party candidate SO attractive to the millions of angry, betrayed, confused, disgruntled, overworked, and underpaid citizens that the very ground will sway under the foundations the oligarchs think themselves safely situated within.
Watch for falling debris.
I honestly have no idea what this poster is saying. Sometimes speaking in simple language is more powerful, as it is understood by everyone. It reminds me of how politicians speak, using words, phrases, and analogy's that can be interpreted in more than one way, so they're not held accountable.
My grandpa used to tell me, if it sounds like bs, it's probably bs.
Siouxrose and Dante,
I stand by what I said. I don't need nuances when it comes to the mass murder of children.
McKibben plays the environmental counterpart of American pacifists -- he utters florid words, but lets the poor die, whether from environmental disasters or war. McKibben's support for war does negate his environmentalism, because it makes him into a murderer of children.
Moral relativism came into being with the enlightenment, along with many other evil ideas, such as the duality between man and nature. This perpetual choice of the lesser of two evils has led us down a path of ever greater evil.
Either/Or. From Zarathrustra to Kierkegaard we have had that choice. Moral beings cannot choose to act morally in one aspect of their lives and immorally in the others, while trying to seek a "balance" of more morality than evil. Doesn't work.
By siding with Obama, McKibben has aligned himself with depleted uranium, drones, cluster bombs, mines, napalm, night raids, torture, black site prisons, and every other horror done by Barack the Baby Killer. You can't rape and murder children and call yourself a good person.
"tomcarberry"
Thank you for trying.
It is interesting that my original comment to which "Siouxrose" responded seems to have disappeared.
McKibben is like Kucinich. There is NO way I can trust either of them as long as they support that which they have made their careers out of supposedly opposing. The ridiculous notion that you can protest against Obama's policies AND support Obama at the same time is especially devious.
"I stand by what I said. I don't need nuances when it comes to the mass murder of children."
I personally did not ask you not to "stand by your words." My statement was I do not support your position (stand) of negating the good this man has attempted to accomplish. Does that make me a moral relativist?? Am I a child rapist? A Murderer? I definitely do not live in your either/or world, nor would I want to.
That is all I have to say.
Thomas Gilbert-
I agree with you Tom. McKibben's inability (whatever the reason) to reject and condemn Obama is gutless, deplorable, and bewildering ... for all the reasons that you have articulated.
.
Tho I wouldn't say Mckibs fully supports O ... he does walk the thin ambiguous line of non-disapproval approval. Like saying that O is "Progressive President" on democracy now a week ago ... was he being ironic and sarcastic, was it a jab at O's ostensible (tho clearly, to anyone whose been paying attention, non-existent) progressivism, or was it a freudian slip of sorts ... does Mckibbs actually think O is a progressive? I don't know ... it was an ambiguous remark.
.
In one sentence he says O's policy of fasttracking the lower half of the keystone xl is "ominous" ... and in the next sentence he says that O is doing it to "play defense" against the oil companies ... suggesting that O's pure heart would lead him to do the right thing if only it was allowed.
.
I think it's safe to say that a pattern has emerged where M gently chastizes the wayward "populist" president ... and then immediately follows that up by patting him on the back.
.
I don't know why he's doing it ... but I do know that it is wrong.
Most politicians, and so called leaders of causes eventually show their true colors by being cowards.
They sell out for money and power.
It's human nature.
Real hero's are few and far between.
tomcarberry...thanks. You can't support war and be an environmentalist. The USA military is one of the biggest polluters on the planet.
"Siouxrose"
I am surprised that you would think that using an adage in whatever context possible could be anything but astrological.
I cited your use of the adage because it seemed connected to my train of thought, but I will not make any promises in regard to future usages.
As a Pisces and a Water Dragon (I'm 60 this year), I never really have a problem with people telling me that I'm all wet. I would not want to Not be. It would be distressful for me.
We'll keep the $40 billion, you get to destroy the planet. Good deal.
As Ralph Nader has pointed out for years, it is not just the direct subsidies we should be targetting but the incredibly low royalties paid to the US government representing the citizens who actually own the land where much of the oil extraction takes place. Other countries get far more for oil extracted from their land than the citizens of the US...
That is for sure here in Calif. the prices were set in the 50s and haven't changed so the state gets short changed. Jerry tried to raise them in his first term but the feds stopped him. Amerika picking up speed on the downard slide.
Careful with that one. Look what happened to Mossadegh when he raised that issue.
There's also an excellent comment in this week's Nature on the problem with carbon offsets. Have a gander:
http://www.nature.com/news/the-inconvenient-truth-of-carbon-offsets-1.10373
That corporations happen to be operating under a corporate charter is incidental to the real economic fact that they are all monopolies. A monopoly may be defined as any provider who controls more than a single digit percentage share on any defined market: i.e. from the street corner in the local tornado-fodder burg to the global finance powerhouse, and everything in between. Any action hailed as "business friendly" is actually more "monopoly friendly" and stifling both of business and the public interest.
"The Seven Sisters" of Standard Oil..
And I still haven't read Ida Tarbell's book:"The History of The Standard Oil Company", one of the top ten Investigative Journalism feats of the last century...
Obama is playing a cynical game. He dropped all the populist, pro-99% ideas once he was elected, and has dusted them off and recycled them now that he's facing re-election with a low approval rating. With a Republican controlled House, he knows there's no chance of their passing, so he's free to throw out all kinds of good ideas now. His corporate benefactors, whom he has so assiduously served, know this; in any case, most of them are hedging their bets by also giving to Romney.
Yep Candidate Obama is back! I even heard him promise to close Gotmo. Again. Knowing the Kongress will not let him
Of course the Bots are very happy. They keep saying that THIS is the man I voted for.
You know, as much as I despised Bush, he was right once.
Fool me once....then you won't be fooled again.
If the sitting government told the energy corporations that they intended to take actions that they didn't want, a message would be delivered to the government to pack your bags you won't be here long. Do you think a government that took actions that led to fuel shortages and ten dollar a gallon gas would be reelected? The corporate takeover has reached the stage that corporations are able to threaten governments at will. Corporations have the power now to run up the price of anything food, fuel, water, health care, you name it. They could crash the stock market at will. If you can crash the economy you can control or change the government. The takeover is not yet complete yet but the corporations are in control and the Corporate Fascist Police State is putting the final pieces in place.
Fossil fuels subsidies and tax breaks are the acme of corporate welfare.
Subsidizing an industry that is so obviously profitable makes no valid business sense especially in times of fiscal "austerity". The only way they could make sense is that they aren't really subsidies at all...they are predetermined and agreed to pay offs in return for something most of us are not allowed to be privy to.
Where does someone like McKibben come off as an expert in policy and economics? From what I understand he is an Ivy League, rich kid who was a failed journalist turned activist. What amazes me about people who follow these types is that on the left people like McKibben are treated a valid sources, however the same people throw a hissy fit whenever someone on the right, who is also lacking in qualifications starts taking uninformed positions. If the left is ever going to progress in this country maybe they should start ignoring, power tripping yuppie hypocrites like McKibben and start thinking a little more critically about the issues and their own biases.
Trolls like you are so easy to recognize...LOL!!!
excellent article! for all of you who spew out 'SOLYNDRA' EVERYTIME RENEWABLE ENERGY IS MENTIONED, YOU REALLY NEED TO GET INFORMED. Do the math, what percentage of 10 BILLION is 513 million? Probably too tough for you to figure out... now take 10 BILLION and times it by 50 years..use a calculator then get the percentage of 513 million outta THAT! Big mistake subsidizing renewables? I don't think so...try to validate that one you oil troll.
Thomas Jefferson never supported slavery, the monarchy in London did from the early 1600s to 1835. The USA ended slavery in 1865 but after only being an independent country from 1781. Compare. Also didn't start grabbing land from indigenous people. The British monarchy did that in the 1600s as well and continued it until right up to the 1760s including the "French and Indian War" which provided London with Canada by military imperialism against the French and indigenous people.
Jefferson had it in his version of the Declaration of Independence an attack on slavery which London had brought to this hemisphere. Maybe some have Jefferson confused with Jefferson Davis. They are two different people. Jefferson submitted his version of the document cited but the 13 colonies assembly rejected it. Jefferson also presided over the only legislation congress passed to end slavery before the civil war doing so in 1807. This legialtion banned the importation of any slaves.
"TJ never supported slavery...."
.
Uh .... the guy owned hundreds of slaves throughout his life. He had well over 100 slaves when he died in the 1820's.
.
I'd say that's pretty good evidence that he actually did support slavery.
What are you talking about? If you cannot grasp the fact that McKibben and his ilk are just "lifestyle" activists who move from fad to fad then you are really missing my point.
Biggest payola of all.
Chosen suppliers to "American Defence".
Access to global resources backed up by USA military might.
Beneficiaries of every war.
Less of a subsidy and more of a way of death.
Obama appears to have has fully accepted this destructive world view schema.