(08-05-2009 04:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  What I'm saying is that the government is subsidizing consumers of oil by mitigating our exposure to risks associated with oil dependence. The entire SPR enterprise is a (minimal) effort at insuring ourselves against those risks. If, for example, the government covered collision insurance for everyone's car (thereby making car ownership less risky), wouldn't you consider that a subsidy for cars?

Note: I don't see DoD use of titanium as analogous. If I were saying that US military usage of oil is an oil subsidy, then I'd see the relationship -- but I'm not. I'm solely talking about US government expenditures related to mitigating threats to our uniterrupted access to oil.
-----------------------------

If mitigating the exposure to risk experienced by Americans is the definition of subsidy, then the entire Department of Defense, State Department, etc are subsidies, as well as Customs, Emigration, Border Patrol, the Coast Guard, foreign embassies, etc. Everything they protect us from becomes a subsidized industry. I guess you could define the attempts to exclude illegal immigrants as a subsidy of American labor unions.

Interest comparison to collision coverage, at a time when healthcare coverage is being debated. Is that a subsidy also?

OTOH, if merely getting a financial benefit is a subsidy, then I guess depreciation is a subsidy for builders, the forestry industry, etc.


As near as I can tell, you have used two different definitions of subsidy so far. Maybe it is time you actually defined what you mean by subsidy.

Regardless of how you define subsidy, is it just the "subsidy" for oil that you dislike? Are the subsidies for electric cars, storm windows, corn, milk, coal, whatever, are they all OK? Is this discussion about subsidies or oil?

If your solution (to anything) is to withdraw American "subsidies" to oil (or anything else), does this mean we no longer protect American interests and shipping? If an American oil tanker with an American crew is threatened by pirates, does dispatching a US Navy ship constitute a subsidy? (...to the shores of Tripoli..) How about dispatching American diplomats to negotiate their release? Was the Obama administration subsidizing the news industry by working to free the two journalists from North Korea, or should they have said they have better uses for those dollars? I thought the purpose of our military was to protect Americans and legitimate American interests. Would you withdraw that from selected Americans and selected American interests?

What do/did you want us to do?

It sounds to me that you just don't like oil and Bush, and saying the War in Iraq is a subsidy of oil interests is just a convenient way to hit two birds with one stone. JMO