Fracking, Texas and drought relief

[Snackbar]

fed should demand a plan to mitigate further man made droughts before releasing relief funds. seems pretty straight forward. bailing out a bad plan once is fine, but you have to make sure that there is a plan to prevent the same issue in the future.

Good thinking, maybe some sort of relief contingent on the state reimbursing the fed the cost over x years. Money talks louder than "we promise it wont happen again"

 

[7437]

Good thinking, maybe some sort of relief contingent on the state reimbursing the fed the cost over x years. Money talks louder than "we promise it wont happen again"

especially if it is actively making Texas money. I think a plan to mitigate future droughts would be more effective than repayment though. or hell, both.

 

[CableandThanos]

That's true. But is it their fault for taking what we give them? I complain about breeding unnecessary dependency for votes and how the programs aren't intended to do what they say they are intended to do.

I love how libs always blame the people that they can't really hold responsible. Companies are gonna try and get money or tax breaks, THAT IS THERE JOB.

Unless everyone protest the company, you are not going to change that.

BUT YOU KNOW HOW YOU COULD CHANGE THAT


HOLD RESPONSIBLE THE PEOPLE THAT WE ELECT THAT ARE SUPOOSE TO BE WATCHING OUT FOR THIS KIND OF CRONY CAPITALISM.

WE CAN'T FIRE WALMART OR EXXON, BUT WE SURE AS HELL CAN VOTE PEOLE OUT OF OFFICE. AND WE CAN LOOK AT THE NEXT PERSON AND SAY, IF YOU LET THIS SHIT HAPPEN, YOUR ASS IS OUT AS WELL.

LIBS HOLDING MONEY MAKING COMPANIES TO BLAME, BUT THE ACTUAL PEOPLE THAT WE ELECT TO WATCH OUT FOR US, YOU DON'T EVER HERE THEM COMPLAINING ABOUT THERE ELECTED DEMS DOING THERE DAMN JOB.


But libs just do it because it makes them feel high and mighty without actually having to do anything or take any of the blame. If i bitch about a company, I'll feel go and people will like me. If I bitch about the elected officials, people may ask me why I didn't help vote the last guy out of office. OHH knoes, I don't want to be called on any of my irresponsibility, so I'll just blame this big old mean companies.

 

[James Keith]

wouldn't this be a bit akin to giving welfare money to people who have big flatscreen TVs, Iphones, Xboxes and Air Jordans?

Maybe if they used the water for filling swimming pools. Energy production isn't really a leisure activity or overpriced status symbol.

 

[IGIT]

I love how libs always blame the people that they can't really hold responsible. Companies are gonna try and get money or tax breaks, THAT IS THERE JOB.

Unless everyone protest the company, you are not going to change that.

hello and good morning CableandThanos,

why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, my friend?

the OP isn't written in a lib vs con, tone...and nowhere in my posts have i blamed the fossil fuel corporations for using precious vanishing resources in their pursuit of profits.

if anything, i question Federal policy of doling out drought relief to a state that has a "profits first, water resources second" mentality. like i said, Texas is free to sanction the use of their vanishing drinkable water in the midst of a historic drought for fracking - i just don't know why they should get handouts if they are willfully exacerbating their own problems.

do you?

as i pointed out earlier, to me, it's not much different than handing out SNAP money and housing subsidies to folks who can afford Xbox, Air Jordans, huge flatscreen TVs, and other goodies (while at the same time claiming poverty and financial need).

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Maybe if they used the water for filling swimming pools. Energy production isn't really a leisure activity or overpriced status symbol.

hello James Keith,

energy production is a business, from my understanding, it's also a very profitable business.

what i'm unclear on, is if energy production is a huge financial boon for Texas, why not tax the earnings (instead of, as Governor Perry does, boast about how low corporate taxation is) to provide relief to numerous municipalities in Texas that are suffering from drought and water shortage as opposed to having big government bail them out?

to me, it seems alot like privatizing gains but socializing loss.

no?

- IGIT

 

[OldGoat]

hello James Keith,

energy production is a business, from my understanding, it's also a very profitable business.

what i'm unclear on, is if energy production is a huge financial boon for Texas, why not tax the earnings (instead of, as Governor Perry does, boast about how low corporate taxation is) to provide relief to numerous municipalities in Texas that are suffering from drought and water shortage as opposed to having big government bail them out?

to me, it seems alot like privatizing gains but socializing loss.

no?

- IGIT

Sort of like the GM bailout and Wall Street bailouts? For political gain of course.

Look, IGIT, you may have a point somewhere but you usually miss the big picture. The big picture is that people, entities, organisms, adapt to their environments the best they can. So the bigger blame should be placed on those who construct the environment not those who live in it. Which is why I am against some forms of tax and spend and for some other forms of tax and spend.

 

[IGIT]

Sort of like the GM bailout and Wall Street bailouts? For political gain of course.

Look, IGIT, you may have a point somewhere but you usually miss the big picture. The big picture is that people, entities, organisms, adapt to their environments the best they can. So the bigger blame should be placed on those who construct the environment not those who live in it. Which is why I am against some forms of tax and spend and for some other forms of tax and spend.

hello OldGoat,

mmmm...actually, no. not like the Wall Street bailout, and not like the GM bailout either, really.

we can discuss the two in detail, if you'd like, but that's not really the focus of my OP. if possible, lets just try stay on-topic.

i asked you a question earlier, one which you haven't answered. i'll try again, OldGoat;

does Federal policy of sending "big government" dollars to a state that's parched for water and using what little water remains on fracking make sense to you, from a policy standpoint?

- IGIT

 

[OldGoat]

hello OldGoat,

mmmm...actually, no. not like the Wall Street bailout, and not like the GM bailout either, really.

we can discuss the two in detail, if you'd like, but that's not really the focus of my OP. if possible, lets just try stay on-topic.

i asked you a question earlier, one which you haven't answered. i'll try again, OldGoat;

does Federal policy of sending "big government" dollars to a state that's parched for water and using what little water remains on fracking make sense to you, from a policy standpoint?

- IGIT

It depends on what the policy is meant to do. What is the variable we are trying to optimize via policy?

 

[RYOTOOOOOO]

I love how libs always blame the people that they can't really hold responsible. Companies are gonna try and get money or tax breaks, THAT IS THERE JOB.

Unless everyone protest the company, you are not going to change that.

BUT YOU KNOW HOW YOU COULD CHANGE THAT


HOLD RESPONSIBLE THE PEOPLE THAT WE ELECT THAT ARE SUPOOSE TO BE WATCHING OUT FOR THIS KIND OF CRONY CAPITALISM.

WE CAN'T FIRE WALMART OR EXXON, BUT WE SURE AS HELL CAN VOTE PEOLE OUT OF OFFICE. AND WE CAN LOOK AT THE NEXT PERSON AND SAY, IF YOU LET THIS SHIT HAPPEN, YOUR ASS IS OUT AS WELL.

LIBS HOLDING MONEY MAKING COMPANIES TO BLAME, BUT THE ACTUAL PEOPLE THAT WE ELECT TO WATCH OUT FOR US, YOU DON'T EVER HERE THEM COMPLAINING ABOUT THERE ELECTED DEMS DOING THERE DAMN JOB.


But libs just do it because it makes them feel high and mighty without actually having to do anything or take any of the blame. If i bitch about a company, I'll feel go and people will like me. If I bitch about the elected officials, people may ask me why I didn't help vote the last guy out of office. OHH knoes, I don't want to be called on any of my irresponsibility, so I'll just blame this big old mean companies.

That mentality occurs on both sides of the aisle though. Conservatives bitch about bogus unemployment and welfare recipients religiously, while liberals moan about bogus corporate tax relief and largely undeserved industrial/financial bailouts.

I don't see why we have to polarize this.

 

[James Keith]

energy production is a business, from my understanding, it's also a very profitable business.

it's a hell of a lot more important than that. You see the shit going on between EU/Ukraine/Russia? Economies rise and fall based on energy prices.

 

[IGIT]

That mentality occurs on both sides of the aisle though. Conservatives bitch about bogus unemployment and welfare recipients religiously, while liberals moan about bogus corporate tax relief and largely undeserved industrial/financial bailouts.

I don't see why we have to polarize this.

hello Ryotooooo,

i don't know why folks see it as a "lib vs con" thing either - that's not how i see it at all.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

it's a hell of a lot more important than that. You see the shit going on between EU/Ukraine/Russia? Economies rise and fall based on energy prices.

g'afternoon Mr. Keith,

no doubt, energy production is hugely important. its the reason we're in the Middle East and the prime rationale behind our proxy wars and puppet governments the United States implements in the region.

the thing is, you redacted the rest of my post;

what i'm unclear on, is if energy production is a huge financial boon for Texas, why not tax the earnings (instead of, as Governor Perry does, boast about how low corporate taxation is) to provide relief to numerous municipalities in Texas that are suffering from drought and water shortage as opposed to having big government bail them out?

to me, it seems alot like privatizing gains but socializing loss.

i'd also add that whilst a robust energy sector is important to all americans, i figure having drinkable water probably trumps it, particularly if you're running out of it.

95% of the counties in Texas have been declared "natural disaster areas", not due to a lack of energy production - it's because they are running out of water.

- IGIT

 

[jefferz]

I work for a fracking company, at work right now as i type this actually. I know we use a lot of water to frac our wells, however for the amount of energy used does anyone know how much water is used in a powerplant for the same amount of energy? How about a coal or nuclear plant?

Fracking use of water when compared to the amount of energy output per gallon of water used fracking is one of the most water efficient forms of energy. Look it up.

also, i dont think the government should pay for it however how is it any different than California going on a spending spree and creating an unatainable financial plan then have the governement bail them out? Or Detroit in the same manner?

I dont like any form of governement hand outs HOWEVER im only okay with them in the instance that the government gets something good in return, in this case AN ABUNDANCE OF HIGH PAYING JOBS and those people pay and abundance of taxes.

thats a lot better deal for the governement than just paying government leeches like gangstas in the ghetto getting free shit and not paying amything back.....

.

.

Have you seen a Poseidon tank break yet? I watched a guy hit one with a cat and it was awesome.

 

[CableandThanos]

That mentality occurs on both sides of the aisle though. Conservatives bitch about bogus unemployment and welfare recipients religiously, while liberals moan about bogus corporate tax relief and largely undeserved industrial/financial bailouts.

I don't see why we have to polarize this.

ohh believe me I know, I am fiscally conservative, more socially liberal.

I love how repubs complain about welfare but they try and outlaw abortion, one of the biggest money saving things there are.

There are 1.2 million abortions per year, say 3/4 are by people who would need assistance. That's 850,000 more people every year that would go on the government tit. So imagine since what 73 when abortion became legal, that's almost 50 million abortions. Say even half needed assistance, thats 25 million more people on the tit, and likely 25 million more democratic voters:icon_chee

 

[IGIT]

It depends on what the policy is meant to do. What is the variable we are trying to optimize via policy?

hello OldGoat,

what is the variable we are trying to optimize via policy? lol.

why all this torturing of the english language, OldGoat? the relief the taxpayers are providing Texans is to alleviate the financial burden associated with drought conditions.

now that we've established that...

i asked you a question earlier, one which you haven't answered. i'll try again, OldGoat;

does Federal policy of sending "big government" dollars to a state that's parched for water and using what little water remains on fracking make sense to you, from a policy standpoint?

- IGIT

 

[OldGoat]

hello OldGoat,

what is the variable we are tring to optimize via policy? lol.

why all this torturing of the english language, OldGoat? the relief the taxpayers are providing Texans is to alleviate the financial burden associated with drought conditions.

now that we've established that...

i asked you a question earlier, one which you haven't answered. i'll try again, OldGoat;

does Federal policy of sending "big government" dollars to a state that's parched for water and using what little water remains on fracking make sense to you, from a policy standpoint?

- IGIT

On some levels it makes sense, on some levels it does not. It's complicated.

It definitely distorts decision making by socializing many of the negative externalities of the process, and I personally, do not like unnecessary socialization of negative externalities.

 

[James Keith]

g'afternoon Mr. Keith,

no doubt, energy production is hugely important. its the reason we're in the Middle East and the prime rationale behind our proxy wars and puppet governments the United States implements in the region.

yeah. The pointless trolling you seem to be trying to do here notwithstanding. So welfare for a big screen tv isn't a good analogy.

the thing is, you redacted the rest of my post

Not interested in those arguments since the source seemed useless for info (e.g. "in some towns"? the fuck good is stats that start that way? Texas is 25 million people) and I don't happen to be an expert on Texas economics independently. Nor am I much interested in discussions on central planning anyway.

 

[IGIT]

yeah. The pointless trolling you seem to be trying to do here notwithstanding. So welfare for a big screen tv isn't a good analogy.

Not interested in those arguments since the source seemed useless for info (e.g. "in some towns"? the fuck good is stats that start that way? Texas is 25 million people) and I don't happen to be an expert on Texas economics independently. Nor am I much interested in discussions on central planning anyway.

hi James,

i am not trolling. trolling is grounds for being given an infraction or being banned, so knock off the accusations.

if you can't debate the topic, that's fine.

- IGIT

 

[ruthless robert]

hello Ryotooooo,

i don't know why folks see it as a "lib vs con" thing either - that's not how i see it at all.

- IGIT

Because the sad thing is thats reality.

When you see anti fracking things such as the story you posted. While 1 of 100 maybe legit 99 of 100 are a hate group of liberals wanting to ban fracking. These are articles that are cleverly worded with photos and angles to maximize an awe factor to push their agenda. They have an actual hate for American exceptionalism and a hate for energy independance.