Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Monday, March 19, 2012

Who doesn't care about facts...

So MEDIAMATTERS... LOL... Sorry... You can't make this stuff up.  Check out this Epic Graph-FAIL on the part of Fox News:

 Problems?  Well...

They included the average state tax of about 23 cents per gallon both in the category "state" taxes and in the category "state & local" taxes. The total of both state and local taxes is 30.4 cents on average. Fox also placed $3.83 at the bottom, as if taxes are in addition to the price for gasoline. But the $3.83 figure already includes the taxes. (MMFA)
An ACCURATE graph, using correct numbers and scale however, ins't nearly as compelling:

But, hey, why use accurate numbers when discussing an issue as important as tax subsidies going to our single largest (in terms of PROFIT) industry? This is particularly sad, because there are many perfectly legitimate ways to manipulate a graph (playing with the scale on the Y-AXIS, for example) in order to emphasise a point.  You really shouldn't have to out-and-out LIE and CHEAT with bullshit data.

Speaking of PROFITS, apparently, ExxonMobil would have you believe that they pay more in taxes than they make in profit. Which... anyone who's not a complete idiot should realize is a just about a mathematic impossibility... Unless of course you count the taxes paid by the CONSUMER at the pump!  Which I really wouldn't have that much of a problem with, seriously, if the Right wasn't also trying to make the case that lowering Federal Gas TAXES would lower the PRICE of Gas. If ExxonMobil is counting those taxes - paid by us - as a lost revenue opportunity for them, I think it's pretty clear what would happen to the price Gas if those taxes were lowered or repealed:


And that's according to ExxonMobil's own talking point!

The only thing that would happen? The ExxonMobil's of the world would report more profit, still receive billions in tax subsidies, and the rest of us would not only pay exactly the same price at the pump, but we'd also see our property and state income taxes go up substantially in order to make up for the lost revenue our states were once using to maintain our roads.  Well, I don't know about YOU, but I think the ExxonMobil's of the world are taking a big enough chuck out of my paycheck as it is.  So I say: screw 'em. I pay MY taxes, they should sure as hell pay theirs.


(And before anyone brings up subsidies for Electric Cars or Alternative Energy, let me say that I don't have any problem with eliminating those as well.  Let's just make sure that EVERYONE pays their fair share of taxes, and that BIG OIL covers the FULL COST of our continued consumption of their product, which they currently... what's the industry term? Oh yeah: EXTERNALIZE. Which is a fancy way of saying "fucks everybody else with it.")


  1. "before anyone brings up subsidies for Electric Cars or Alternative Energy, let me say that I don't have any problem with eliminating those as well."

    Not my expertise, but I think you should.

    "Keep doing what you're doing" doesn't need a subsidy. "For the love of God, please try something different you friggin' dinosaur" needs a subsidy.

  2. I hear you.

    And that statement wasn't meant as a firm "we should end all green-energy subsidies" position. What we REALLY NEED to do is to have an HONEST, OBJECTIVE discussion about energy and environmental issues...

    ...Which is THE LAST thing the fossil-fuel industry really wants. If we forced thenm to use an appropriate COST estimate, that included the health implications, all the envirnmental impacts in the near term, global warming in the long term, the ECONOMIC impact of these crazy price spikes, etc... If all those currently externalized costs were amortized into every gallon of gas? You wouldn't NEED to subsidize green stuff: The market would kill big oil on its own, and the greens would have the nearly full backing of consumers. Subsidies are currently the necessary alternative, becuase the public will never be fully and accurately informed about the REAL COST of our continued dependence on oil.

    And if they were? And after all that, we still needed subsidies? I'm not OPPOSED to them as a matter of principle or anything. But we've got to all get on the same page first regarding the FACTS. Only then will we REALLY know what he TRUE COST is and what we should be doing with subsidies, if anything.

  3. "ExxonMobil would have you believe that they pay more in taxes than they make in profit. Which... anyone who's not a complete idiot should realize is a just about a mathematic impossibility."

    You wouldn't have Exxon/Mobil's tax return would you? I'd like to see where your proof of how 'little' taxes they paid. You know they are a very large company, how do you know they do NOT pay more in taxes than they make in profits? Just to keep your rant honest (that's what you seek from Fox), how about you bring the actual proof of what you claim they are misleading everyone over.

    " Well, I don't know about YOU, but I think the ExxonMobil's of the world are taking a big enough chuck out of my paycheck as it is. So I say: screw 'em. I pay MY taxes, they should sure as hell pay theirs."

    Do they take that "chunk" because you WANT to drive everywhere? Or because you HAVE to drive everywhere? Oh wait, it's because people like you do all they can to make EV's appear to be unsafe/faulty/defective vehicles because their batteries don't last forever and they sometimes fail if you abuse them. Oh, yeah ... with people like you giving their full support to Big-Oil companies (while whining about them) who needs anyone subsidizing EV's? It's not like EV's are the ONLY way the world has ANY chance of altering the course of Climate Change, but they certainly are a better way than for everyone to continue using oil based fuels while they complain about the profits/dangers arising from companies that supply you with the very product you refuse to live without.
    But, you know, it's not like left-wingers have ever complained about what causes Climate Change. It's not like they KNOW what causes it but are continuing to support using fossil fuels instead of alternatives (sure hate subsidizing alternatives to fossil fuels). Just sayin'

    1. William - This is you: Blah, blah, blah, blame all liberals, blah. I've told you before: You don't get to define my position. And you do a shitty job of defining liberal ones in general anyway. WHO hates EV's? Um... that would be FOX, Limbaugh, the Right, etc... Who've been the ones spreading the lie that they're unsafe. (Because apparently it takes three weeks to get someone out of a car after an accident.) And they've finally been called out on it, BTW :


      No one support's EV's more than Liberals. (Didn't you get the memo?) And the only things I've written about in any detail on the matter has been IN DEFENSE of them, and recently of one in particular. And anyone who's interested in finding out (which if I had to bet would be most liberals and very few conservatives) is welcome to go back to the posts you're blathering about and do what you apparently didn't do: READ THEM. (Or maybe it's what you CAN'T do: COMPREHEND THEM.)

      As for ExxonMobil's tax return? I hardly need it, seeing as how, AS I MENTIONED, the fact that they include the Federal gas Tax PAID BY US at the pump, is called right out in THEIR OWN METHODOLOGY. (Their honest about their dishonesty, I'll give them that!) What's more, TAXES = GROSS PROFITS X TAX RATE. And, last time I checked, TAX RATE < 1. So you do the math, and tell me how can TAXES > PROFITS. Even NET PROFITS can only be < TAXES if the Tax Rate is > 50%... WHICH IT ISN'T. See... I took three semesters of Accounting in Grad School, and passed 5th grade arithmetic. So it's precisely as I said: ANY IDIOT.

    2. "Who've been the ones spreading the lie that they're unsafe."

      That has been YOU.

    3. "William - This is you: Blah, blah, blah, blame all liberals, blah."

      That IS funny! I asked for proof of your claims of fact and you answer with that. Wow

      " I took three semesters of Accounting in Grad School,"

      Well, then perhaps you can explain how business's will buy something (paying taxes on it) then get some kind of write-off to cover that expence. Say, as example, an Oil company wants to build a refinery. The land they buy, will they pay taxes on what they pay? Will they pay taxes on the land itself? Will they pay taxes on the product they've got to buy in order to build it? Will they pay taxes on the equiptment they use/buy/rent to build that refinery?
      Now, for the tough question, do they get to use various tax loopholes in order to get reimbursed for those taxes they just paid in order to build that refinery? Oh, are there any taxes involved with all the employees they've got to pay to build that thing and maintain it? Oh, now let's talk about building the supply structure needed to get that refined fuel to anywhere. Are there any taxes paid in that process?

      OR, (in your humble opinion) do they get to make all that happen without paying ANY taxes?

    4. Hmmm, nothing to say from the grad school accountant? Didn't see that one coming. LOL

    5. *sigh*

      No, its just that I have both a job and a life and can't always be bothered to reply to every single comment.

      The fact is that there are plenty of tax deductions (as you've described) that oil companies take that ALL companies can take, or take an equivalent of, and that are a perfectly legitimate part of calculating ANY company's profits and/or losses. But there are also MANY tax loopholes that are specific to the oil industry, that benefit ONLY them, and that other comapanies in other indistries do not have any kind of equivalent of.

      And these are what need to be eliminated.

      EVERYONE should have to play by the same rules, and once they DO we can argue ALL DAY LONG about what those rules SHOULD BE. I have no problem with the principles of accoutning IN GENERAL, but I can not abide having tax benefits that apply to or favor one industry over another.

      I will also point out, that while I have no answer for your [incredibly detailed] question, once again your point has very little to do with the topic at hand - which is the fact that the oil comapnies want to HAVE IT BOTH WAYS:

      I don't have a problem with them counting the taxes WE PAY AT THE PUMP as a lost opportunity cost for them, but I can't abide them making that argument at the same time that their political whores on the Right make the argument that eliminating the gas tax will lower the price at the pump (more than a few pennies.) Becuase IT SURE AS HELL WILL NOT if the gas companies count that Tax as money that should be in their coffers. (And anyone who argues otherwise flunks micro-economics BIG TIME.) And that's FINE! They can charge as much as they're able to! That's how capitalism WORKS! It would be IMORAL for them to do otherwsie, IMHO! (Hey: I own plenty of oil stocks, outright or in mutual funds, so they better not be leaving any money on the table!) But for crist's sake, just be honest about it! DOn;t act like it eliminating the tax will HELP PEOPLE at the pump, when you know you're going to pocket almost all of it!

      Now, one of the Conservative posters at MMFA (highilghter, IIRC) brought up a good point, that I thik relates a lot to what you;re implying here: That oil and gasoline generate more money for the Government than they do for the Oil Industry. I don't know if that's TRUE or not, but fine: I AM prepared to belive it. There is NO DOUBT that a TON of revenue goes into federal coffers thanks to this industry. (Hence why niether Obama, nor mainstream Liberals are really trying to destroy it, despite what the deluded fever-dreams of the Right might have to say about it.)

      HOWEVER... One must also consider the fact that few products carry the USAGE costs that Gas does. (Alchohol and Tobacco are the only ones that I can think of, and we're not NEARLY as addicted to THEM as we are to GAS.) You've got environmental factors (Oil Spills, Global Warming, Waste from Refineries); Healh issues (Asthma from Smog, Cancer from Benzine exposure, Obesity becuase no one can realistically walk or bike ot work anymore); to Logistic Costs like Road Construction and maintenance (which are necessary for driving in the first place); to the economic impact of prices spikes in oil (which not only makes the gas that ships goods to market, but the PLASTIC that they're made of and shipped IN) and high energy costs; to the costs of DEFENDING oil suplpies, via the use of our MILTARY. (Iraq, Afganistan, etc...)

      And these are costs that are largely externalized, and thus don;t get calculated into the price at the pump, or the companies profit and loss statements. But then... I'm sure I don't need to point all that out to such a staunch supporter of EV's as yourself, Yes?

    6. "I will also point out, that while I have no answer for your [incredibly detailed] question, once again your point has very little to do with the topic at hand "

      But it has a lot to do with your claim that they pay less taxes than they make. You said that as a fact, I simply want proof of what you claim is fact. If you can't (or won't) do that, then you are spreading lies and misinformation.
      Funny how you think lies and misinformation are a bad thing when coming from the right, but when delivered by a left-winger they are acceptable. Should I be writing this on your hypocrisy article?

    7. Weeks go by and still no proof that Exxon/Mobil paid less in taxes than their profit. Are you going to be like Brabantio and lie on a constant basis only because you think liberals are the only ones reading this stuff? I would have figured you would put a slight priority on honesty. I guess I'm wrong.

      Now that you lied on a couple articles you started. How is any rational person expected to believe anything else you write and claim?

  4. Eddie, I highly recommend "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff. It was written in 1954 and is still read today. Short and to the point, it is an easy read that will prove invaluable to the discerning person. All statistics are suspect. I watched a documentary once that made the claim that professional women basketball players were making less money. Their yearly income had dropped,however the days worked had also decreased and the pay per game had actually increased.It is critical to look at all numbers with a jaundiced eye.

    1. 1. Thanks, I'll have to check that out. Stat's is a bit of a hobby of mine (so consequently I end up doing a lot of it in my profession, since no one else on my team likes to! LOL) and I'm always keen to learn more about the tricks of the trade...

      ...To SPOT them, of course, not to USE them. ;)