*
*
Beats me why taxpayers are subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $10 million a minute – when budget deficits are forcing local communities to close libraries and lay off police and teachers.
Source – theguardian.com
– Shell, ExxonMobil and Marathon Petroleum got subsidizes granted by politicians who received significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, Guardian investigation reveals:
Related…Fossil fuels subsidised by $10 million a minute, says IMF: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf
– The world’s biggest and most profitable fossil fuel companies are receiving huge and rising subsidies from U.S. taxpayers, a practice slammed as absurd by a presidential candidate given the threat of climate change.
A Guardian investigation of three specific projects, run by Shell, ExxonMobil and Marathon Petroleum, has revealed that the subsidizes were all granted by politicians who received significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.
The Guardian has found that:
- A proposed Shell petrochemical refinery in Pennsylvania is in line for $1.6bn (£1bn) in state subsidy, according to a deal struck in 2012 when the company made an annual profit of $26.8bn.
- ExxonMobil’s upgrades to its Baton…
View original post 1,802 more words
The Most Revolutionary Act 
An absurd practice indeed. Why is it that voters do not have a say in it where their tax-money goes? Do governments like this act constitutional?
LikeLike
Theoretically US voters are supposed to have a say in where their tax money goes (at least according the the Constitution). If anyone asked them if they want to pay oil companies $10 a minute in subsidies, I’m pretty sure they would say no.
LikeLike
I read about this in a another article. It’s insane, just like everything else about this country!
LikeLike
I agree it’s insane. One question:
Since the income is stolen from the U.S. taxpayer by the IRS via the Federal Reserve through threats of fines, penalties, and incarceration in order to pay the subsidies to the coal, oil, and gas companies; would ending the subsidies return the stolen money (the income/the taxpayer’s stolen wages earned from theirnlabor) to the U.S. taxpayer or would the money be redistributed to people who aren’t forced to pay income tax or would the money be redistributed to other countries? Is this another climate change/for the greater good scheme where the ends justify the means?
LikeLike
I think the whole idea is to get it to stop because it’s wrong and Americans don’t support it. I don’t really see that fossil fuel subsidies have anything to do with climate change. John Kennedy tried to get rid of the oil depletion allowance back in the early 60s. Supposedly this is one of the reasons the big oil companies helped finance the conspiracy to assassinate him.
LikeLike
I bring up the climate change theory because of the promotion by the U.N. of the carbon footprint man is supposedly creating, thus supposedly destroying the environment and future life on planet Earth.
I tend to believe any actual climate change or global warming, if it truly exists, is either intentional or an accidental result of weather modification and geoengineering by the powers that be seeking to control or dominate nature.
Just my own theory.
LikeLike