21 Jan 2026 12:10 am
Even if that argument were valid, nobody would pay $11/gallon at the station. Economic activity would grind to a halt and there would be some drastic changes to city planning, viable transportation alternatives, and density management.Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2026, 12:56 am » wrote: ↑ Let's discuss this claim. Let us put the unsubsidized price of fuel at 11 bucks. I am paying less than three - by a hoo ha. So let us set the claim you make here at a very conservative 8 bucks per gallon in federal subsidies. That is on the conservative end of your claim, I am sure you will agree.
The US consumes 200 billion gallons of gas and deisel per year. So your claim is that the US subsidizes auto fuel at no less than, and possibly much more than, 1.6 trillion per year.
If your claim is true, this means that every country on earth is doing the same, because NO WHERE is gas even close to 11 bucks at the pump. Hell, even ENGLAND - a tax pig in the first place and a climate hysteric in the second place and a top shelf consumer in the third place - is charging less than 6 pounds at the pump. That would bring it to beneath 8 bucks a gallon - not the (alleged) real cost 11 bucks, which is the conservative end of YOUR claim, - and that would mean that for every gallon sold in Britain, the government WOULD BE paying over 3 bucks out of its own pocket, assuming their production costs were the same as ours. But they aren't. Virtually ALL of British petrol is derived from deepwater oil from the north sea, which is far more expensive than sipping light sweet crude with a plastic drinking straw in the permian basin. So the brits have GOTTA be paying - if your claim is true - at least 6 bucks for every **** gallon of petrol sold.
I find that prospect preposterous.
In broad strokes, show me the money. I think you've been copperfielded again.