Ron paul on big oil

[Livid]

Just a few questions that came up in a debate with someone else who is saying Paul supports big oil companies with subsidies and other things of that nature but not other companies. Essentially saying he is in their pocket.

According to ontheissues.org Paul:

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

There was also something about him voting to remove dairy subsidies which would seem to be contrary to his allowing oil subsidies. Anyways can anyone give me more context as to what exactly these issues were really pertaining to so that I can continue to debate them.

 

[strategos]

wow, I didn't know, where you see this record?

 

[travismofo]

Just a few questions that came up in a debate with someone else who is saying Paul supports big oil companies with subsidies and other things of that nature but not other companies. Essentially saying he is in their pocket.

According to ontheissues.org Paul:

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

Pieces of legislation aren't always what they seem. Perhaps they included massive pork spending or led to something even worse. You never know.

 

[pcosmar]

Just a few questions that came up in a debate with someone else who is saying Paul supports big oil companies with subsidies and other things of that nature but not other companies. Essentially saying he is in their pocket.

According to ontheissues.org Paul:

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

There was also something about him voting to remove dairy subsidies which would seem to be contrary to his allowing oil subsidies. Anyways can anyone give me more context as to what exactly these issues were really pertaining to so that I can continue to debate them.

Could you post the text of those bills so that the ACTUAL issue could be addressed.
I seems so often that the Name of a bill is misleading.

 

[johngr]

I seems so often that the Name of a bill is misleading.

Often misleading? You can nearly always be assured that a law's effect will be the opposite the title of the bill.

 

[nickcoons]

Often misleading? You can nearly always be assured that a law's effect will be the opposite the title of the bill.

You've got to be kidding. I mean, just look at bills like the PATRIOT A.. no, I guess that one was misleading. How about... no, that was misleading too

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ron Pauls supports NO subsidies. Liberals that say he does are just either

a. dumb
b. lazy
c. assholes

 

[tonyr1988]

About the oil subsidies law, it was this one:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00006:

(I hope that's not just a temp link - if so, I can get another one) It looks like a pretty big increase of the size of government - ending oil subsidies was only one part of the bill he voted against.

That CAFE bill required certain mpg regulations on cars. Not only is that more government regulation, but it's worthless - with the price of gas rising, more people will want energy-efficient cars anyway.

Also:

Q: Bush's energy bill provided billions of dollars in tax breaks & subsidies to the oil companies with the goal of boosting domestic production at a time of record profits. Do you support that?

A: I don't think the profits is the issue. The profits are okay if they're legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don't think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Therefore, Ron Paul is not a patriot... same logic. Like others have said, you can't go by the name of the bill or how either party pimps the bill.

 

[bbachtung]

Here's a concise statement of RP re: oil:

If we want to do something about gas prices, we should demand greatly reduced welfare and military spending, a balanced budget, and fewer regulations that interfere with the market development of alternative fuels. All subsidies and special benefits to energy companies should be ended. We also should demand a return to a sound commodity monetary system.

 

[Daveforliberty]

About the oil subsidies law, it was this one:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00006:

(I hope that's not just a temp link - if so, I can get another one) It looks like a pretty big increase of the size of government - ending oil subsidies was only one part of the bill he voted against.

That CAFE bill required certain mpg regulations on cars. Not only is that more government regulation, but it's worthless - with the price of gas rising, more people will want energy-efficient cars anyway.

Also:

Wow that is one humongous bill. I didn't read it, but I'm sure 99% of the congresspeople who vote on it won't either. At first glance it looks like a litany of regulations. More big government. I wonder who really wrote it.

No surprise here why RP voted no.

 

[Daveforliberty]

Just glanced at section 402(!) at random from this massive piece of legislation. It's about heat pumps and geothermal energy. These are good things, of course, but the section begins with the following:

IN GENERAL- The Administrator shall establish a program to...

Another government program. Are there hundreds more in this bill?

 

[tonyr1988]

Even the title of the bill implies that it will increase the size/scope of government:

An Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers from price gouging, to increase the energy efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

Hey, wait - those things all rock - I like energy efficiency and clean air!!! Why did he vote against this?!?!?!? (/sarcasm)