Liberal Forum

LowIQTrash » 20 Jan 2026, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2026, 12:14 pm

I've been around ZionHedge long enough to note any structural changes to the wind. Back in 2015 they were all like "Soshalizm bad, taxes bad, all spending bad" style libertarDianism.

The fact 50% of the comments is now all about criticizing the status quo as "socialism for the wealthy" is a huge indictment of the system...when you've lost all the freedom chest chumpers.

  here is a typical Boomer response:

"These idiots have plenty of time to sit on the Internet and bitch and complain about the current system but no time whatsoever to change their lot in life!"

 
 

LowIQTrash » 20 Jan 2026, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2026, 12:19 pm

Fuel"Money"Man didn't get the memo that libertardianism stopped being popular after 2013, when calling oneself a "Republican" in the aftermath of the Financial Crisis of 07-09 no longer carried penalties. 

  how do I get on the memo list?
 

Fuelman » 20 Jan 2026, 1:12 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2026, 1:12 pm

LowIQ's link called socialism=theft.

I remember plenty from 2008. We lived in one of the hardest hit county's in America. Riverside and San Bernardino in California. Our home purchased in 2004 for a little over $200k went up to about $470k by 2007. Thankfully we didn't access that equity as many people did and we didn't lose our jobs. We still got out with a small profit in 2010. A person I worked with and his wife who worked at a casino bought a $500k house at the top of the market, you know how that ended!

It appears that big banker socialism worked out in the long run for the Treasury.

The 2008 bank bailout, primarily through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), authorized $700 billion to stabilize the financial system, though this was later reduced to $475 billion; the total actual outflow was around $443.5 billion, with the program ultimately generating a profit for the U.S. Treasury after repayments and interest, according to GAO and Treasury. Key recipients included major banks, the auto industry, and AIG, with funds used for capital injections, credit market stabilization, and foreclosure prevention, per Treasury and ProPublica. 

Final Outcome: The Treasury eventually recovered more than it spent, booking a profit as banks repaid loans and sold their government stakes, notes Wikipedia and GAO. 
 

Did you correctly attribute that BS? I am calling you out. The sources you named are fake. 

It was written by David Copperfield. A little shazam here and a little misdirection there, nothing about the 187 billion for HERA, no mention of H4H, and a main stage blackout on quantitative easing. 

I guess omitting the QE is fair enough, since the enormity of the theft - sorry, the socialism - is virtually impossible to quantify.
 
 
 

Fuelman » 20 Jan 2026, 1:30 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2026, 1:30 pm

  how do I get on the memo list?

You have to subscribe to my newsletter...for a small price of $19.99/month!

Fuelman » 20 Jan 2026, 1:12 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2026, 1:12 pm

Enjoy your government subsidized gas, otherwise it would cost $10-15 a gallon including external costs.

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. 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2026, 12:56 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 12:56 am

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.

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: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 12:56 am

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.

I think you missed the part "including external costs", unaccounted costs of climate change, pollution-related health issues, and environmental damage. How that is measured and calculated is probably a little hocus pocus as most of those articles are from climate activist green weenies. 

It's been suggested that the direct subsidies should be scrapped for big oil, that didn't go over too well.


The Illusion of SavingsFossil fuels often appear deceptively affordable for consumers, but low retail prices are an illusion created by underpricing that does not account for the full scope of their impact. And while we might not see the true cost reflected at the pump or on our energy bill, we pay the price in countless other ways. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that global fossil fuel subsidies—which include direct subsidies as well as the unaccounted costs of climate change, pollution-related health issues, and environmental damage—reached a staggering $7 trillion in 2022, with the U.S. accounting for nearly 35% of the global total.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies: The $760 Billion Lie About 'Free Market' Energy | FracTracker Alliance https://share.google/TMaIg812z99Xo55ve

LowIQTrash » 21 Jan 2026, 1:10 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 1:10 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.

Which would **** real estate developers.

Fuelman » 21 Jan 2026, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 9:15 am

I think you missed the part "including external costs", unaccounted costs of climate change, pollution-related health issues, and environmental damage. How that is measured and calculated is probably a little hocus pocus as most of those articles are from climate activist green weenies. 

That is why I "missed" it. Because it's MOSTLY ****.

But more to the point, I missed nothing. I simply asked for your numbers, on which you are now hedging a tad.

I would just remind you that I didn't toss this claim out there. I merely axed forclarification.

Fuelman » 21 Jan 2026, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 9:15 am

It's been suggested that the direct subsidies should be scrapped for big oil, that didn't go over too well.

Let's quantify THOSE.

Fuelman » 21 Jan 2026, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 9:15 am

The Illusion of SavingsFossil fuels often appear deceptively affordable for consumers, but low retail prices are an illusion created by underpricing that does not account for the full scope of their impact. And while we might not see the true cost reflected at the pump or on our energy bill, we pay the price in countless other ways. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that global fossil fuel subsidies—which include direct subsidies as well as the unaccounted costs of climate change, pollution-related health issues, and environmental damage—reached a staggering $7 trillion in 2022, with the U.S. accounting for nearly 35% of the global total.

Tp heckwith those guys. I wanna know what the smart fellas from Davo are saying. Give me the REAL facts.

Fuelman » 21 Jan 2026, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 9:15 am

Fossil Fuel Subsidies: The $760 Billion Lie About 'Free Market' Energy | FracTracker Alliance https://share.google/TMaIg812z99Xo55ve

So... you don't wanna talk about the "externals" because they're **** (here's a link, though), and you have not addressed the direct subsidies at all. And that is also understandable. I strongly suspect that even though we will likely agree on the concept of subsidies, we will have some friction on the concept of "direct."

I called BS.I renew my call.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2026, 11:53 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2026, 11:53 pm

Did you correctly attribute that BS? I am calling you out. The sources you named are fake. 

It was written by David Copperfield. A little shazam here and a little misdirection there, nothing about the 187 billion for HERA, no mention of H4H, and a main stage blackout on quantitative easing. 

I guess omitting the QE is fair enough, since the enormity of the theft - sorry, the socialism - is virtually impossible to quantify.

I'll agree it gets murky when it comes to the government accounting.


Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) | U.S. Department of the Treasury https://share.google/nHFyqagz0gmc0xH6X

Looks like the net loss was more like $31 billion.

I stand corrected.
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2026, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 9:25 am

That is why I "missed" it. Because it's MOSTLY ****.

But more to the point, I missed nothing. I simply asked for your numbers, on which you are now hedging a tad.

I would just remind you that I didn't toss this claim out there. I merely axed forclarification.

Let's quantify THOSE.

Tp heckwith those guys. I wanna know what the smart fellas from Davo are saying. Give me the REAL facts.

So... you don't wanna talk about the "externals" because they're **** (here's a link, though), and you have not addressed the direct subsidies at all. And that is also understandable. I strongly suspect that even though we will likely agree on the concept of subsidies, we will have some friction on the concept of "direct."

I called BS.I renew my call.

  I don't have the numbers, you don't have the numbers, so let's argue over the numbers we don't have.

A quick AI search brings up these direct subsidies:

Direct subsidies to Big Oil in the U.S. primarily involve significant tax breaks (like for enhanced oil recovery, marginal wells, and faster depreciation) and favorable access to public lands via low royalty rates, alongside federal financing/loan guarantees, and R&D funding for extraction technologies, totaling tens of billions annually, though figures vary by source and definition, with reports from Oil Change International citing around $34.8 billion yearly, notes Oil Change International, Oil Change International. 

Here's a breakdown of common direct subsidies:

Tax ProvisionsEnhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Credit: A 15% tax credit for costs associated with EOR projects, though often phased out at higher prices, notes Cato Institute.

Marginal Well Credit: A per-unit credit for low-production wells, also subject to price-based phase-outs, notes Cato Institute.

Accelerated Depreciation: Allowing faster write-offs for certain infrastructure, like natural gas distribution lines, notes NRDC. 

Federal Land & Resource AccessRoyalty Relief on Federal Lands: Reductions or waivers of royalties companies pay for drilling on public lands, notes FracTracker Alliance.

Below-Market Leasing: Offering leases for oil and gas exploration on public lands at rates lower than market value, notes Oil Change International.

 Financial & R&D SupportLow-Interest Loans & Guarantees: Providing favorable financing or government-backed guarantees for fossil fuel projects, notes FracTracker Alliance.

Research & Development Funding: Direct federal funding for technologies to improve fossil fuel extraction, notes FracTracker Alliance. 

Other
SupportCarbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) Credits: Tax credits (like the 45Q credit) for capturing and storing CO2, which often benefits oil and gas operations, notes Cato Institute.

 Key Reports & FiguresOil Change International (2025): Estimates $34.8 billion annually, including new additions by Congress.

FracTracker Alliance (2025): Highlights royalty relief, loans, R&D, and below-market leases as key direct supports.

Brookings Institution: Notes direct subsidies for oil and gas, with EESI reporting $20 billion/year, 80% to oil/gas, notes EESI https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil 
 
 

Fuelman » 20 Jan 2026, 1:12 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2026, 1:12 pm

LowIQ's link called socialism=theft.

I remember plenty from 2008. We lived in one of the hardest hit county's in America. Riverside and San Bernardino in California. Our home purchased in 2004 for a little over $200k went up to about $470k by 2007. Thankfully we didn't access that equity as many people did and we didn't lose our jobs. We still got out with a small profit in 2010. A person I worked with and his wife who worked at a casino bought a $500k house at the top of the market, you know how that ended!

It appears that big banker socialism worked out in the long run for the Treasury.

The 2008 bank bailout, primarily through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), authorized $700 billion to stabilize the financial system, though this was later reduced to $475 billion; the total actual outflow was around $443.5 billion, with the program ultimately generating a profit for the U.S. Treasury after repayments and interest, according to GAO and Treasury. Key recipients included major banks, the auto industry, and AIG, with funds used for capital injections, credit market stabilization, and foreclosure prevention, per Treasury and ProPublica. 

Final Outcome: The Treasury eventually recovered more than it spent, booking a profit as banks repaid loans and sold their government stakes, notes Wikipedia and GAO. 

Enjoy your government subsidized gas, otherwise it would cost $10-15 a gallon including external costs.

well said...
 

LowIQTrash » 20 Jan 2026, 3:45 am » wrote: ↑

20 Jan 2026, 3:45 am

But...but...but...dats SOSHALIZM!! ~ retarded conjob

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/soc ... lism-theft

         

Retarded conjobs are too stoooopid to understand what the above means.

No wonder PEEPEE "WHO PRINTS THE MONEY?" ALWAYS LAUGHED AT THE TRUMPTARDS

Ya full of **** lying bastard.

Fuelman » 21 Jan 2026, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 9:47 am

  I don't have the numbers, you don't have the numbers, so let's argue over the numbers we don't have.

A quick AI search brings up these direct subsidies:

Direct subsidies to Big Oil in the U.S. primarily involve significant tax breaks (like for enhanced oil recovery, marginal wells, and faster depreciation) and favorable access to public lands via low royalty rates, alongside federal financing/loan guarantees, and R&D funding for extraction technologies, totaling tens of billions annually, though figures vary by source and definition, with reports from Oil Change International citing around $34.8 billion yearly, notes Oil Change International, Oil Change International. 

On a scale of 1 to10, what level of hypocrisy is a republican engaging in when he refers to "tax breaks" (not taking money) is a "subsidy"?

Fuelman » 21 Jan 2026, 9:47 am » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 9:47 am

Here's a breakdown of common direct subsidies:

Tax ProvisionsEnhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Credit: A 15% tax credit for costs associated with EOR projects, though often phased out at higher prices, notes Cato Institute.

Marginal Well Credit: A per-unit credit for low-production wells, also subject to price-based phase-outs, notes Cato Institute.

Accelerated Depreciation: Allowing faster write-offs for certain infrastructure, like natural gas distribution lines, notes NRDC. 

Federal Land & Resource AccessRoyalty Relief on Federal Lands: Reductions or waivers of royalties companies pay for drilling on public lands, notes FracTracker Alliance.

Below-Market Leasing: Offering leases for oil and gas exploration on public lands at rates lower than market value, notes Oil Change International.

 Financial & R&D SupportLow-Interest Loans & Guarantees: Providing favorable financing or government-backed guarantees for fossil fuel projects, notes FracTracker Alliance.

Research & Development Funding: Direct federal funding for technologies to improve fossil fuel extraction, notes FracTracker Alliance. 

Other
SupportCarbon Capture & Sequestration (CCS) Credits: Tax credits (like the 45Q credit) for capturing and storing CO2, which often benefits oil and gas operations, notes Cato Institute.

 Key Reports & FiguresOil Change International (2025): Estimates $34.8 billion annually, including new additions by Congress.

FracTracker Alliance (2025): Highlights royalty relief, loans, R&D, and below-market leases as key direct supports.

Brookings Institution: Notes direct subsidies for oil and gas, with EESI reporting $20 billion/year, 80% to oil/gas, notes EESI https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil

I'm not seeing 8 bucks a gallon.

And as I said, I don't believe for a minute that the brits are subsidizing gas.

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2026, 10:31 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 10:31 pm

On a scale of 1 to10, what level of hypocrisy is a republican engaging in when he refers to "tax breaks" (not taking money) is a "subsidy"?

I'm not seeing 8 bucks a gallon.

And as I said, I don't believe for a minute that the brits are subsidizing gas.

It's not a left or right issue, it's government accounting.

Yes, tax breaks and subsidies generally function as negative outlays or reductions in revenue for governments, appearing in the "negative column" (like a reduction of revenue or an expense/expenditure) because they reduce tax collections or directly cost money, effectively acting as government spending or forgone revenue, though timing can sometimes make them appear as revenue raisers in specific years. They're often treated as tax expenditures, which are essentially government spending through the tax code, reducing the Treasury's funds. 

Whatever the amount is on subsidized gas just know every time you fill up, that subsidy goes in the negative column for government accounting. 
 

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2026, 10:31 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 10:31 pm

And as I said, I don't believe for a minute that the brits are subsidizing gas.

Now you know for sure:

, the UK provides significant support to the gas and oil industry through tax breaks and grants, estimated at billions annually, alongside direct consumer support during energy crises, though the government has claimed it doesn't subsidize fossil fuels in the traditional price-gap sense. This support includes substantial tax relief for exploration, funding for decommissioning, and a large energy price cap for households and businesses, totaling tens of billions, sparking debate over climate goals and public spending. 
 

Fuelman » 22 Jan 2026, 8:32 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2026, 8:32 am

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2026, 10:31 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2026, 10:31 pm

On a scale of 1 to10, what level of hypocrisy is a republican engaging in when he refers to "tax breaks" (not taking money) is a "subsidy"?

I'm not seeing 8 bucks a gallon.

And as I said, I don't believe for a minute that the brits are subsidizing gas.

It's not a left or right issue, it's government accounting.

Yes, tax breaks and subsidies generally function as negative outlays or reductions in revenue for governments, appearing in the "negative column" (like a reduction of revenue or an expense/expenditure) because they reduce tax collections or directly cost money, effectively acting as government spending or forgone revenue, though timing can sometimes make them appear as revenue raisers in specific years. They're often treated as tax expenditures, which are essentially government spending through the tax code, reducing the Treasury's funds. 

Whatever the amount is on subsidized gas just know every time you fill up, that subsidy goes in the negative column for government accounting.

That's not a number.

I'm putting it at a 7.

Fuelman » 22 Jan 2026, 11:07 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2026, 11:07 am

Now you know for sure:

, the UK provides significant support to the gas and oil industry through tax breaks and grants, estimated at billions annually, alongside direct consumer support during energy crises, though the government has claimed it doesn't subsidize fossil fuels in the traditional price-gap sense. This support includes substantial tax relief for exploration, funding for decommissioning, and a large energy price cap for households and businesses, totaling tens of billions, sparking debate over climate goals and public spending.

Russia is charging 30-40 bucks a gallon for urals crude.
 

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2026, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2026, 11:16 am

That's not a number.

I'm putting it at a 7.

As far as I know, government accounting never resets to zero. It gets even more amusing when those numbers are projected 10 years into the future.

7 sounds about right but I doubt the government is listening.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2026, 11:19 am » wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2026, 11:19 am

Russia is charging 30-40 bucks a gallon for urals crude.

That would be per barrel,,,,

Russia is charging significantly less for its Urals fuel oil than global benchmarks due to Western sanctions, with prices dropping to the mid-$30s to low-$40s per barrel range by late 2025, a steep discount (sometimes over 20%) from Brent crude, as buyers face risks and need deep cuts to take on Russian oil, impacting Russia's revenue.