Reality check on electric cars

[QP!]

In how many of those countries are there government mandates and big subsidies to purchase EV's? And, no, we don't "give huge subsidies to oil companies and vehicle manufacturers" (outside of EV's).

Terry is repeating his debunked lie he CONTINUALLY repeats that only EV companies and not ICE nor Oil And Gas have got gov't subsidies of all forms.

He hand waves away any AI or google summaries of all of them as if i should have all this data at my finger tips, and recite it not using those aggregators and if i do he would then demand i cite what i am claiming while again hand waving away AI or google summaries.

What Terry hates about AI or google is HOW GOOD they are at exposing his lies in summary fashion with all the links to back up what is provided as opposed to us just making 'claims' on this forum, as he does above, with no citations and then engaging in a he said/she said 'no i am right' back and forth.




-------

AI fact check : "no, we don't "give huge subsidies to oil companies and vehicle manufacturers". Please fact check this statement with a historical context examining all US based subsidies to all industries.

------

The forum poster T.A Gardner’s claim is false or, at minimum, highly misleading.


The U.S. government has a long history of subsidizing and financially supporting both the oil & gas industry and traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle manufacturers — through direct bailouts, tax advantages, loan guarantees, infrastructure spending, favorable regulations, and indirect subsidies.


Here’s a fact-check breakdown:

---

Claim:​

“No, we don’t give huge subsidies to oil companies and vehicle manufacturers (outside of EVs).”

Verdict:​

False / Misleading


Both the fossil fuel industry and ICE auto manufacturers have received substantial government support for decades and are amongst the highest subsidized industries in US history.

---

1. Oil & Gas Subsidies Are Real and Longstanding​

Numerous federal tax provisions and support mechanisms specifically benefit oil and gas companies.


Examples include:

• Intangible Drilling Costs deduction (IDC)
  Lets companies immediately deduct drilling expenses rather than depreciating them over time.
• Percentage depletion allowance
  Allows some producers to deduct more than the actual decline in a well’s value.
• Master Limited Partnership (MLP) tax treatment
  Gives pipeline/fossil fuel infrastructure favorable tax status.
• Accelerated depreciation for fossil fuel infrastructure
• Below-market leasing and royalty arrangements on public lands

Recent estimates place direct annual U.S. fossil-fuel subsidies around $20–35+ billion per year, depending on methodology.


Even conservative analyses acknowledge billions annually in federal support.

CITATION

---

2. ICE Automakers Have Received Massive Government Support​

The claim that vehicle manufacturers only received subsidies for EVs is historically inaccurate.

Chrysler Bailout (1980)​

The federal government provided Chrysler with:

• $1.5 billion in federally guaranteed loans

This is one of the classic examples of direct industrial intervention to save an ICE automaker.

CITATION

---

2008–2009 Auto Bailouts​

The U.S. government intervened massively to save the traditional auto industry during the financial crisis.


Programs supported:

• General Motors
• Chrysler
• financing arms tied to ICE vehicle production

Treasury states the Automotive Industry Financing Program was created specifically to prevent the collapse of the U.S. auto industry.


Government assistance included:

• tens of billions in loans and equity support
• TARP funding
• federal guarantees
• rescue financing for auto credit markets

Treasury notes the program was intended to prevent catastrophic economic damage and possible loss of up to one million jobs.


ProPublica and other sources describe the bailout as worth tens of billions.

CITATION

---

3. Indirect Subsidies to ICE Transportation Are Enormous​

Even beyond direct corporate aid, ICE transportation has historically benefited from huge public spending, including:

• Interstate highway construction
• Oil shipping protection/naval security
• Strategic Petroleum Reserve
• Gas tax structures that often fail to fully cover road maintenance costs
• Suburban infrastructure built around automobile dependency
• Environmental externalities not fully priced into fuel costs

Economists often describe these as indirect subsidies because they reduce the real operating cost of fossil-fuel transportation while shifting costs to the public.

---

4. EV Subsidies Exist — But They Are Not Unique​

It is true that EVs receive:

• consumer tax credits
• battery manufacturing incentives
• charging infrastructure support

But portraying this as something unprecedented while ignoring a century of support for fossil fuels and ICE manufacturing is historically inaccurate.


In many ways, EV subsidies resemble older industrial policies previously used for:

• railroads
• aviation
• oil & gas
• nuclear power
• semiconductors
• and ICE automakers themselves

---

5. Important Context​

There is a legitimate debate over:

• whether subsidies are good policy,
• whether EV subsidies are too large,
• or whether fossil fuel subsidies should continue.

But saying:

“only EVs get subsidies”

is not factually supportable.


Historically, oil & gas and ICE vehicle manufacturing are among the industries that have received some of the largest and most sustained forms of U.S. government support.

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATIONhttps://www.theguardian.com/environ...fuels-subisidies-study?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

[T. A. Gardner]

@T. A. Gardner would benefit from allowing AI to aggregate sources for him and then to read summaries of what has been provided as he is near 100% in misrepresenting or missing key information in the articles he posts that contradict what he is saying.

I would say he is arguably this forums biggest offender in that regard, continually posting articles that actual prove him wrong while claiming they support his position, hoping no one reads them. An AI summary could help him do better.

 

[QP!]

That you either do not know or constantly lie about Oil and GAS and ICE Manufacturers government subsidies of all kind, when they are amongst the top subsidized industries in US history shows how ideological your bullshit is.

You refuse to learn or update and just come back and repeat the same debunked lies over and over and over again.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That you either do not know or constantly lie about Oil and GAS and ICE Manufacturers government subsidies of all kind, when they are amongst the top subsidized industries in US history shows how ideological your bullshit is.

You refuse to learn or update and just come back and repeat the same debunked lies over and over and over again.

List the subsidies oil and gas get. Roughly 90% of them aren't actually subsidies at all but accounting methods used across business and industry mixed with some governmental research and development projects.

 

[QP!]

List the subsidies oil and gas get. Roughly 90% of them aren't actually subsidies at all but accounting methods used across business and industry mixed with some governmental research and development projects.

Are you claiming that lobbied for and changed "accounting methods " that are granted specifically to Oil and Gas, to help lower their costs are not a "subsidy" in the way "government subsidies" are defined?

Can you provide a sourced definition you can cite that would define "subsidies" and not include that?

You can see my links cited above for what you ask but once you answer my question here i will pull some info from them for you with AI.

 

[Into the Night]

In many countries EVs lead the sales of vehicles.

Only by government edict (fascism).

That is because other nations embrace science.

Magick Word. Science is not involved here, Sybil.

They do not have a bumbling Trump,

You mean that guy that runs a successful real estate development company and is worth billions? You mean that guy that was elected President of the United States twice? You mean that guy that ended Democrat economic depressions TWICE?

Bumble some more, Trump!

anti-science idiots and fossil fuel lobbying to deal with.

Magick Word. Science is not involved here.
Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn. There is no lobby for using fossils for fuel.

We give huge subsidies to oil companies and vehicle manufacturers.

Just EVs. Oil companies do not receive subsidies for fuel. Vehicle manufacturers do not receive subsidies for producing gasoline or diesel cars.

 

[Into the Night]

@T. A. Gardner would benefit from allowing AI to aggregate sources for him and then to read summaries of what has been provided as he is near 100% in misrepresenting or missing key information in the articles he posts that contradict what he is saying.

I would say he is arguably this forums biggest offender in that regard, continually posting articles that actual prove him wrong while claiming they support his position, hoping no one reads them. An AI summary could help him do better.

T.A. Gardner does not cut and paste AI slop.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Are you claiming that lobbied for and changed "accounting methods " that are granted specifically to Oil and Gas, to help lower their costs are not a "subsidy" in the way "government subsidies" are defined?

Name those specific to the oil and gas industry. The lists I've seen show standard accounting practices applied to that industry that benefit it.

Can you provide a sourced definition you can cite that would define "subsidies" and not include that?

You're the one saying they get lots of subsidies. List the subsidies.

You can see my links cited above for what you ask but once you answer my question here i will pull some info from them for you with AI.

For example, from your "citations:

The U.S. spends roughly $30 to $35 billion per year on direct fossil fuel subsidies through tax breaks, royalty discounts, and other financial support for oil, gas, and coal companies.

How Much Does the U.S. Spend on Fossil Fuel Subsidies?

U.S. fossil fuel subsidies range from billions to trillions depending on how you count them. Here’s what the numbers actually include.

scienceinsights.org

Tax breaks? List them. Royalty discounts? All mineral extraction pay royalties. Show where the ones the oil and gas industry vary to their benefit compared to say mining or timber industries.

Other financial support is a vague generality of no relevance.

History of U.S. Gov't Bailouts

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

www.propublica.org

Lists ZERO energy sector oil and gas "bailouts." This source is irrelevant.

The Motley Fool link is the same thing. (I also put little value on anything the Motley Fool says but that's a different issue)

A History of U.S. Government Bailouts | The Motley Fool

The spigot that keeps on giving.

www.fool.com

Factuality is so vague as to be irrelevant.

https://factually.co/fact-checks/en...l-gas-subsidies-321173?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Basically, you got nothing in those citations.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you claiming that lobbied for and changed "accounting methods " that are granted specifically to Oil and Gas, to help lower their costs are not a "subsidy" in the way "government subsidies" are defined?

No such 'special accounting methods'. Stop making shit up.

Can you provide a sourced definition you can cite that would define "subsidies" and not include that?

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

You can see my links cited above for what you ask but once you answer my question here i will pull some info from them for you with AI.

AI slop is pointless. Don't be a zombie.

AI is not a proof.
AI is not a source.
AI is not God.
AI is not the Holy Oracle.

 

[Into the Night]

Terry is repeating his debunked lie he CONTINUALLY repeats that only EV companies and not ICE nor Oil And Gas have got gov't subsidies of all forms.

T.A. Gardner is correct. Assumption of victory fallacy.

He hand waves away any AI or google summaries of all of them as if i should have all this data at my finger tips, and recite it not using those aggregators and if i do he would then demand i cite what i am claiming while again hand waving away AI or google summaries.
...deleted AI slop...

Substituting AI for your brain is always a bad idea, Kewpie.

AI is not a source.
AI is not a proof.
AI is not a Holy Oracle.
AI is not Goid.
AI is usually wrong.
AI is useful, but ONLY if you already know the subject.

 

[QP!]

...
You're the one saying they get lots of subsidies. List the subsidies.
...

You are the one who said this ". Roughly 90% of them aren't actually subsidies at all but accounting methods used across business and industry mixed with some governmental research and development projects."

I can provided dozens of citations both to gov't and private acknowledgement of "subsidies" where 'accounting methods" are listed amongst them.

What you seem to be saying is "despite what they label as subsidizes in those citations those do not count as they are just "accounting methods that do not count as subsidies"

That is your claim above so if you will hand wave away "accounting methods" as not counting, when others DO count them then you need to provide the definition (supported) that you are using that says they do not count.

Otherwise the default is they do count as per them being constantly on lists amongst the various types of subsidies companies can and do get.

 

[Into the Night]

That you either do not know or constantly lie about Oil and GAS and ICE Manufacturers government subsidies of all kind,

There aren't any.

when they are amongst the top subsidized industries in US history shows how ideological your bullshit is.

There are no subsidies for oil used for fuel, or for manufacturers building gasoline cars.

You refuse to learn or update and just come back and repeat the same debunked lies over and over and over again.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You are the one who said this ". Roughly 90% of them aren't actually subsidies at all but accounting methods used across business and industry mixed with some governmental research and development projects."

There is no Magick Accounting Method.

I can provided dozens of citations both to gov't and private acknowledgement of "subsidies" where 'accounting methods" are listed amongst them.

None. Lie. Synthesis.

What you seem to be saying is "despite what they label as subsidizes in those citations those do not count as they are just "accounting methods that do not count as subsidies"

There is no Magick Accounting Method.

That is your claim above so if you will hand wave away "accounting methods" as not counting, when others DO count them then you need to provide the definition (supported) that you are using that says they do not count.

Otherwise the default is they do count as per them being constantly on lists amongst the various types of subsidies companies can and do get.

There is no Magick Accounting Method.

 

[QP!]

Name those specific to the oil and gas industry. The lists I've seen show standard accounting practices applied to that industry that benefit it.


You're the one saying they get lots of subsidies. List the subsidies.


For example, from your "citations:

The U.S. spends roughly $30 to $35 billion per year on direct fossil fuel subsidies through tax breaks, royalty discounts, and other financial support for oil, gas, and coal companies.

How Much Does the U.S. Spend on Fossil Fuel Subsidies?

U.S. fossil fuel subsidies range from billions to trillions depending on how you count them. Here’s what the numbers actually include.

scienceinsights.org

Tax breaks? List them. Royalty discounts? All mineral extraction pay royalties. Show where the ones the oil and gas industry vary to their benefit compared to say mining or timber industries.

Other financial support is a vague generality of no relevance.

History of U.S. Gov't Bailouts

ProPublica is an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

www.propublica.org

Lists ZERO energy sector oil and gas "bailouts." This source is irrelevant.

The Motley Fool link is the same thing. (I also put little value on anything the Motley Fool says but that's a different issue)

A History of U.S. Government Bailouts | The Motley Fool

The spigot that keeps on giving.

www.fool.com

Factuality is so vague as to be irrelevant.

https://factually.co/fact-checks/en...l-gas-subsidies-321173?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Basically, you got nothing in those citations.

There are several very clear cases where the U.S. government directly supported oil & gas production and ICE transportation.


Here are some of the strongest examples:

---

1. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)​

Strategic Petroleum Reserve


The U.S. government literally buys and stores hundreds of millions of barrels of oil in underground caverns to stabilize the petroleum market and protect oil supply chains.


That is direct government support for the oil economy.


Key facts:

• Created after the 1970s oil shocks
• Federally funded and maintained
• Costs taxpayers billions in acquisition, maintenance, and operations
• Exists specifically to support energy security tied to petroleum

Without the SPR, oil price shocks and supply disruptions would hit the industry and consumers much harder.


This is not an “accounting trick” subsidy — it is a physical, taxpayer-funded oil reserve.

---

2. Military Protection of Global Oil Shipping Lanes​

United States Navy


The U.S. spends enormous resources protecting:

• Persian Gulf shipping lanes
• Strait of Hormuz traffic
• global oil tanker routes

This has long been recognized by economists as an indirect subsidy to the petroleum economy because taxpayers absorb security costs required for global oil distribution.


Examples include:

• Gulf War protection of oil supply
• Permanent naval patrols in oil transit regions
• Anti-piracy and tanker escort missions

These costs are not paid directly by oil companies.


The public pays them through defense spending.

---

3. Interstate Highway System​

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956


The federal government spent massive sums building the Interstate Highway System, which:

• dramatically increased gasoline consumption,
• entrenched ICE vehicle dependency,
• and massively benefited oil companies and automakers.

This was one of the largest infrastructure projects in human history.


It effectively created the modern car-and-oil economy in the United States.


Important point:

• highways are heavily taxpayer funded,
• but many road systems do not fully pay for themselves through gas taxes and tolls,
• meaning general taxpayers subsidize automobile transportation.

That is a structural subsidy to ICE transportation.

---

4. 2008–2009 Auto Industry Bailout​

General Motors
Chrysler


The federal government provided tens of billions of dollars to rescue traditional ICE automakers during the financial crisis.


This was not EV-related.


It was explicitly to prevent collapse of conventional auto manufacturing.


Support included:

• emergency loans,
• equity purchases,
• financing guarantees,
• support for auto credit markets.

Without it, major ICE manufacturers likely would have gone bankrupt.

---

5. Federal Oil & Gas Leasing at Favorable Terms​

Bureau of Land Management


The federal government leases public lands for drilling, often at:

• below-market royalty rates,
• favorable lease terms,
• subsidized access infrastructure.

Historically, royalty rates in the U.S. were significantly lower than what many private landowners or foreign governments charged.


That directly lowers production costs for oil companies.

---

6. Taxpayer-Funded Cleanup of Abandoned Wells​

There are hundreds of thousands of orphaned oil and gas wells in the U.S.


When companies go bankrupt or walk away:

• taxpayers frequently fund cleanup and environmental remediation.

Recent federal infrastructure legislation allocated billions for orphan well cleanup.


That means:

• profits were privatized,
• cleanup liabilities were socialized.

Again, that is a very concrete subsidy.

---

7. Ethanol Mandates and Fuel Support Programs​

Renewable Fuel Standard


Even conventional fuel systems receive extensive government market intervention.


The federal government:

• mandates fuel blending,
• supports fuel infrastructure,
• and heavily shapes gasoline markets through regulation and subsidy structures.

While ethanol support is agricultural as well, it is still part of subsidizing the broader liquid-fuel transportation system.

---

Why This Matters in the EV Debate​

A common misconception is:

“EVs are government-supported, while gasoline vehicles succeeded naturally through the free market.”

Historically, that is not accurate.


The modern fossil fuel + ICE economy was built alongside:

• massive federal infrastructure investment,
• military protection,
• tax advantages,
• direct bailouts,
• public land access,
• and market-shaping government policy.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There are several very clear cases where the U.S. government directly supported oil & gas production and ICE transportation.


Here are some of the strongest examples:

---

1. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)​

This is a national defense initiative. How the Hell is that a "subsidy?" The government is buying oil to store for national emergencies.

---

2. Military Protection of Global Oil Shipping Lanes​

International shipping lanes are not just carrying oil. The Strait of Hormuz is, for example, a major route for fertilizers and aluminum. Saying the US is protecting oil shipments ignores the majority of the ship traffic passing through those straits.

3. Interstate Highway System

WTF does this have to do with oil and gas production? The interstate highway system is a defense project started by Eisenhower after he saw the German autobahn system. It is a NATIONAL DEFENSE PROJECT!

4. 2008–2009 Auto Industry Bailout

So? What's that got to do with the oil and gas industry? Different industry. Not a subsidy.

5. Federal Oil & Gas Leasing at Favorable Terms​

This is like saying mining or timber get federal "favorable terms." This is a line of bullshit. The government charges what they charge. BLM land is auctioned for leases to ranchers to run cattle or other livestock. This one is utter nonsense.

6. Taxpayer-Funded Cleanup of Abandoned Wells​

Were these wells legally abandoned? Oil production was occurring for nearly a century before the EPA existed. Arguing that somehow old wells, or mines, for that matter are the responsibility of the party who had no responsibility AT THE TIME they were abandoned is asinine. The US doesn't allow for ex post facto laws. Since the land is often federally owned in these cases, the feds are responsible for its clean up.

---

7. Ethanol Mandates and Fuel Support Programs​

Ethanol is a net loss leader that raises gasoline prices significantly

Alternative Fuels Data Center: Ethanol Laws and Incentives in Federal

The government mandates ethanol be put in gasoline to make it "cleaner." The government then subsidizes their diktats because without those subsidies, on a program they forced on producers, nobody would produce ethanol. It's too damn expensive otherwise.

Why This Matters in the EV Debate​

EV's are largely dictated by the government as replacements for ICE vehicles. This has nothing to do with oil and gas subsidies.

 

[QP!]

This is a national defense initiative. How the Hell is that a "subsidy?" The government is buying oil to store for national emergencies.

it is explained there. Read it.

International shipping lanes are not just carrying oil. The Strait of Hormuz is, for example, a major route for fertilizers and aluminum. Saying the US is protecting oil shipments ignores the majority of the ship traffic passing through those straits.

Again explained. You saying 'others things travel through there' does not negate how tax payers funds are being used to benefit Oil and gas. Saying 'but other things benefit too' is not a rebuttal.

WTF does this have to do with oil and gas production? The interstate highway system is a defense project started by Eisenhower after he saw the German autobahn system. It is a NATIONAL DEFENSE PROJECT!

Again, what you say does not mean that tax payers were not spent in ways that massively benefitted the oil and gas industry too. Two thigns can be true at the same time

So? What's that got to do with the oil and gas industry? Different industry. Not a subsidy.

That was specifically about ICE vehicles, which is another industry you deny wrongly has received subsidies while stating EV's do.

This is like saying mining or timber get federal "favorable terms." This is a line of bullshit. The government charges what they charge. BLM land is auctioned for leases to ranchers to run cattle or other livestock. This one is utter nonsense.

No its not. If the land has a market value or use or restrictions for use that they allow Oil and Gas to get access to at lower than market rates that is a subsidy.

If i rent my house for $1000 a week but let my kid stay there for $100 i am subsidizing him even though i can "charge what i charge".

Saying they "charge what they charge" does not prevent it being a subsidy and Oil and Gas is consistently getting this subsidy.

Were these wells legally abandoned? Oil production was occurring for nearly a century before the EPA existed. Arguing that somehow old wells, or mines, for that matter are the responsibility of the party who had no responsibility AT THE TIME they were abandoned is asinine. The US doesn't allow for ex post facto laws. Since the land is often federally owned in these cases, the feds are responsible for its clean up.

Does not matter. If the Oil and gas companies that dumped that stuff got to keep the profits and the tax payers got the bill they got subsidized.

You saying 'there was no law or legal way to force them to clean it up' does not change the fact they were subsidized. Subsidized just means the tax payer directly or indirectly ends up providing the company money or picking up their costs.

...
EV's are largely dictated by the government as replacements for ICE vehicles. This has nothing to do with oil and gas subsidies.

Yes I through in the EV's as an extra as that is an area where your ignorance is the same as you claim EV's get subsidies but ICE vehicles historically never did.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

it is explained there. Read it.


Again explained. You saying 'others things travel through there' does not negate how tax payers funds are being used to benefit Oil and gas. Saying 'but other things benefit too' is not a rebuttal.



Again, what you say does not mean that tax payers were not spent in ways that massively benefitted the oil and gas industry too. Two thigns can be true at the same time



That was specifically about ICE vehicles, which is another industry you deny wrongly has received subsidies while stating EV's do.


No its not. If the land has a market value or use or restrictions for use that they allow Oil and Gas to get access to at lower than market rates that is a subsidy.

If i rent my house for $1000 a week but let my kid stay there for $100 i am subsidizing him even though i can "charge what i charge".

Saying they "charge what they charge" does not prevent it being a subsidy and Oil and Gas is consistently getting this subsidy.


Does not matter. If the Oil and gas companies that dumped that stuff got to keep the profits and the tax payers got the bill they got subsidized.

You saying 'there was no law or legal way to force them to clean it up' does not change the fact they were subsidized. Subsidized just means the tax payer directly or indirectly ends up providing the company money or picking up their costs.


Yes I through in the EV's as an extra as that is an area where your ignorance is the same as you claim EV's get subsidies but ICE vehicles historically never did.

The explanations are just weasel wording. That is, they try to make it out that these subsidize the oil and gas industry when they do no such thing. Got any examples of direct subsidization of oil and gas?

 

[QP!]

The explanations are just weasel wording. That is, they try to make it out that these subsidize the oil and gas industry when they do no such thing. Got any examples of direct subsidization of oil and gas?

no that is absolutely false. You are using weasel words to deny what is clear and true.

As always you hand wave away what is not even denied amongst government and dozens of sources i cite above write about as UNDERSTOOD and CLEAR subsidies. There is not even controversy as they subsidies are discussed in gov't and news. And yet Terry says 'i refuse to Oil and Gas companies making the profits and letting tax payer dollars clean up the mess as subsidy as it was not against the law at the time'.

No where in the definition of a subsidy does it require it be illegal at the time.

But you use weasel words to make that a requirement which is why i asked you to provide your definition as i can provide dozens more examples ut what is the point if you will just say 'nuh uh... not a subsidy by my definition'.

You won't give your definition as then i can give example that fit YOUR definition and you will have no more weasel words to escape it.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Terry is repeating his debunked lie he CONTINUALLY repeats that only EV companies and not ICE nor Oil And Gas have got gov't subsidies of all forms.

He hand waves away any AI or google summaries of all of them as if i should have all this data at my finger tips, and recite it not using those aggregators and if i do he would then demand i cite what i am claiming while again hand waving away AI or google summaries.

What Terry hates about AI or google is HOW GOOD they are at exposing his lies in summary fashion with all the links to back up what is provided as opposed to us just making 'claims' on this forum, as he does above, with no citations and then engaging in a he said/she said 'no i am right' back and forth.




-------

AI fact check : "no, we don't "give huge subsidies to oil companies and vehicle manufacturers". Please fact check this statement with a historical context examining all US based subsidies to all industries.

------

The forum poster T.A Gardner’s claim is false or, at minimum, highly misleading.


The U.S. government has a long history of subsidizing and financially supporting both the oil & gas industry and traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle manufacturers — through direct bailouts, tax advantages, loan guarantees, infrastructure spending, favorable regulations, and indirect subsidies.


Here’s a fact-check breakdown:

---

Claim:​

Verdict:​

False / Misleading


Both the fossil fuel industry and ICE auto manufacturers have received substantial government support for decades and are amongst the highest subsidized industries in US history.

---

1. Oil & Gas Subsidies Are Real and Longstanding​

Numerous federal tax provisions and support mechanisms specifically benefit oil and gas companies.


Examples include:

• Intangible Drilling Costs deduction (IDC)
  Lets companies immediately deduct drilling expenses rather than depreciating them over time.
• Percentage depletion allowance
  Allows some producers to deduct more than the actual decline in a well’s value.
• Master Limited Partnership (MLP) tax treatment
  Gives pipeline/fossil fuel infrastructure favorable tax status.
• Accelerated depreciation for fossil fuel infrastructure
• Below-market leasing and royalty arrangements on public lands

Recent estimates place direct annual U.S. fossil-fuel subsidies around $20–35+ billion per year, depending on methodology.


Even conservative analyses acknowledge billions annually in federal support.

CITATION

---

2. ICE Automakers Have Received Massive Government Support​

The claim that vehicle manufacturers only received subsidies for EVs is historically inaccurate.

Chrysler Bailout (1980)​

The federal government provided Chrysler with:

• $1.5 billion in federally guaranteed loans

This is one of the classic examples of direct industrial intervention to save an ICE automaker.

CITATION

---

2008–2009 Auto Bailouts​

The U.S. government intervened massively to save the traditional auto industry during the financial crisis.


Programs supported:

• General Motors
• Chrysler
• financing arms tied to ICE vehicle production

Treasury states the Automotive Industry Financing Program was created specifically to prevent the collapse of the U.S. auto industry.


Government assistance included:

• tens of billions in loans and equity support
• TARP funding
• federal guarantees
• rescue financing for auto credit markets

Treasury notes the program was intended to prevent catastrophic economic damage and possible loss of up to one million jobs.


ProPublica and other sources describe the bailout as worth tens of billions.

CITATION

---

3. Indirect Subsidies to ICE Transportation Are Enormous​

Even beyond direct corporate aid, ICE transportation has historically benefited from huge public spending, including:

• Interstate highway construction
• Oil shipping protection/naval security
• Strategic Petroleum Reserve
• Gas tax structures that often fail to fully cover road maintenance costs
• Suburban infrastructure built around automobile dependency
• Environmental externalities not fully priced into fuel costs

Economists often describe these as indirect subsidies because they reduce the real operating cost of fossil-fuel transportation while shifting costs to the public.

---

4. EV Subsidies Exist — But They Are Not Unique​

It is true that EVs receive:

• consumer tax credits
• battery manufacturing incentives
• charging infrastructure support

But portraying this as something unprecedented while ignoring a century of support for fossil fuels and ICE manufacturing is historically inaccurate.


In many ways, EV subsidies resemble older industrial policies previously used for:

• railroads
• aviation
• oil & gas
• nuclear power
• semiconductors
• and ICE automakers themselves

---

5. Important Context​

There is a legitimate debate over:

• whether subsidies are good policy,
• whether EV subsidies are too large,
• or whether fossil fuel subsidies should continue.

But saying:




is not factually supportable.


Historically, oil & gas and ICE vehicle manufacturing are among the industries that have received some of the largest and most sustained forms of U.S. government support.

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATION

CITATIONhttps://www.theguardian.com/environ...fuels-subisidies-study?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Well done. This will, of course, be rejected because it doesn't confirm RW bias.

 

[QP!]

Well done. This will, of course, be rejected because it doesn't confirm RW bias.

Yup.

Terry's entire game is to say 'i will not define what a subsidy is nor will i list what subsidies i think EV's get that are unique to them and that other industries including ICE and Oil and Gas got because if i do, then you can cite clear examples", and instead he will hand wave every single examples cited no matter the source as not meeting his undisclosed definition of a subsidy.