WE ARE IN A MOTHERFUCKING RECESSION AGAIN THAT STARTED IN AUGUST.

POLITICS BE DAMNED THE LAST THING WE NEED IS MORE POVERTY INDUCED THROUGH GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

WHEN IS ENOUGH SUFFERING ENOUGH MR OBAMA?


Goddammit all he cares about are his banker friends. You would think he'd have some soul and think of the poor and working class for once jesus.

9/15/2011 11:30:16 PM

Quote :

"it's really not focused on that, though. only a 4th of it is going to infrastructure."

A fourth of what?

To my understanding: this is what the jobs package entails:

1. Cutting a payroll tax on employers and employees.

2. Allocating funds to create projects around the nation.

3. Tax credits for hiring workers, notably those unemployed for longer than 6 months and veterans.

4. Investment of funds into state and local sectors to preserve jobs such as teachers, police, and firefighters.

Yes, this package is going to cost money to get going. A lot of money. But what is the one thing Americans want out of this shitty economy? A fucking job. Being unemployed has the most tangible effect on somebody's livelihood, and it seems to be the one thing people in this country are pissed about the most. Understandably so. Nobody wants to be in a position where they feel the powerlessness of being unable to scrape enough funds together any given week to pay rent, get food, gas, etc. I've been there. I feel like there a lot of good ideas in this package, and I'm willing to give it a chance. Sure, it's going to be expensive, but who cares about spending when it could put food on the table?

9/15/2011 11:45:02 PM

Quote :

"THE LAST THING WE NEED IS MORE POVERTY INDUCED THROUGH GOVERNMENT REGULATION. WHEN IS ENOUGH SUFFERING ENOUGH MR OBAMA? Goddammit all he cares about are his banker friends. You would think he'd have some soul and think of the poor and working class for once jesus."

wtf? That's the most schizophrenic post I think i've ever seen. What are you trying to say?

9/16/2011 12:38:32 AM

Quote :

"I just don't get why people can't grasp the government is not efficient."

Exactly. A perfect example is the solar company who just declared bankruptcy after receiving $550 million in stimulus money. Apparently there were huge signs that there were material operating issues that stem beyond capital, and these signs were ignored. If you want to invest in green tech, fine, but conduct the proper due diligence to provide oversight that the funds are not going to be wasted.

This is private equity 101. They dont cut a check and hope for the best. They consult with leaders in the industry to ensure the funds are being used properly.

9/16/2011 7:34:31 AM

Quote :

" This is private equity 101. They dont cut a check and hope for the best. They consult with leaders in the industry to ensure the funds are being used properly."

People never make bad bets in private industry?

9/16/2011 7:38:20 AM

^^China just got done giving its solar companies tens of BILLIONS of dollars. Who can compete with that much free money?



[Edited on September 16, 2011 at 9:37 AM. Reason : China pretty much runs the solar game]

9/16/2011 9:36:41 AM

NEWS FLASH!!!

The American Jobs Act of 2011 has been introduced in the House.

H.R. 2911.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.02911:

9/16/2011 10:34:06 AM

Let's hope it passes.

9/16/2011 10:48:30 AM

Quote :

"Quote : " This is private equity 101. They dont cut a check and hope for the best. They consult with leaders in the industry to ensure the funds are being used properly." People never make bad bets in private industry?"

Absolutely. But it isnt from lack of due diligence. If a PE firm chooses a company in the shitter, they have vested interest in helping to turn said company around. The US stroked a check and walked away without having a clue to the financial health or viability of the company

9/16/2011 1:22:03 PM

Quote :

"China just got done giving its solar companies tens of BILLIONS of dollars. Who can compete with that much free money?"

great. lets buy cheap chinese solar panels

9/16/2011 1:24:18 PM

Quote :

"WE ARE IN A MOTHERFUCKING RECESSION AGAIN THAT STARTED IN AUGUST. POLITICS BE DAMNED THE LAST THING WE NEED IS MORE POVERTY INDUCED THROUGH GOVERNMENT REGULATION. WHEN IS ENOUGH SUFFERING ENOUGH MR OBAMA? Goddammit all he cares about are his banker friends. You would think he'd have some soul and think of the poor and working class for once jesus."

Because I could not hear the inflection of your voice as you were thinking these sentences, I was unsure whether or not you were being sarcastic or if you actually believed what you were typing. Upon further investigation into your posts, I have concluded that you are the latter. The thing that jumped out at me from your post is that you are basically correlating poverty with government regulation. To which I ask you: What regulation? There is no goddamn government regulation anymore. De-regulation is what led directly to the crash of 2008, the savings and loan scandals of the 1980's, and Enron, all of which not only hurt or outright crippled the economy but induced poverty on varying scales. So what the fuck are you talking about?

9/17/2011 7:59:59 AM

Quote :

"A fourth of what?"

I'm sorry that you are incapable of reading. a fourth of what? a fourth of the fucking jobs bill that we are god damned talking about, you fucking moron. first god damned post!

9/17/2011 1:22:39 PM

Yeah, I read where China invested at least 20 billion more than the US in solar industries.

9/17/2011 3:48:49 PM

Quote :

"I'm sorry that you are incapable of reading. a fourth of what? a fourth of the fucking jobs bill that we are god damned talking about, you fucking moron. first god damned post!"

When I read that link, I saw that the plan will cost 450 billlion. 250 billion of that is going to come from tax cuts. This isn't money that the government is going to spend; this is just what they stand to lose. The money the government IS going to put up, 200 billion, is going to infrastructure and direct assistance (half and half). Therefore, in terms of the effort on part of the government, technically half is going to go to infrastructure. This is all semantics, but if you're saying I'm too goddamn stupid to read then you better make damn sure you're not guilty of the same shit yourself. Moving on.

Okay, the reason I was confused is because you saying the impact of the infrastructure part of the legislation was ONLY a fourth was too goddamn stupid to be recognizable, and I needed a little bit of context in which I could finally understand your idiotic thought. Why the fuck does it matter if it's only a fourth of the legislation? Is that supposed to make its impact any less important? You're not even tying your thought to some kind of conclusion. What the fuck are you talking about?

9/17/2011 5:36:18 PM

^^^^There are no government regulations anymore? What reality are you living in?

[Edited on September 17, 2011 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ]

9/17/2011 5:37:25 PM

Quote :

"Therefore, in terms of the effort on part of the government, technically half is going to go to infrastructure."

which is meaningless in the overall aspect of the bill. liberals consistently complain about "how much the bush tax cuts cost." yet when Obama does it, it's not a cost. be consistent.

Quote :

"and I needed a little bit of context in which I could finally understand your idiotic thought."

yes, you needed context in a thread where the very first post offered it and the title should have also been a huge hint.

Quote :

"Why the fuck does it matter if it's only a fourth of the legislation? Is that supposed to make its impact any less important?"

yes. it shows that the bill is, as usual, not as targeted as it probably should be. to tout this as an "infrastructure bill" is stupid. it's another tax cut, which, if we listen to liberals, doesn't help create jobs. unless Obama does it. I'm all for infrastructure spending. I think it's a damned good idea. but this bill isn't really focused on it. it's just another political ploy by Obama

9/17/2011 10:16:52 PM

This bill would fund just as much useful infrastructure as the last one did: not much. Certainly nothing worth the money.

9/18/2011 12:37:36 AM

stop using your brain and pass it. Pass it... pass it, just pass it. Pass it.

O sounds like he has a kidney stone these days

9/18/2011 6:26:20 PM

THE LAST ONE WORKED SO WELL, WE MUST PASS THIS BILL!!!

WELL, WE MUST PASS THE BILL ONCE THE DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE INTRODUCE IT.

WELL, WE MUST PASS THE BILL ONCE THE DEMOCRATS INT THE HOUSE INTRODUCE IT UNDER ANOTHER NAME, BECAUSE I TOOK SO LONG TO GIVE IT TO THEM THAT ANOTHER CONGRESSMAN INTRODUCED THE REAL AMERICAN JOBS ACT OF 2011.

9/18/2011 7:00:10 PM

[/thread] until next month

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-jobs-speech-right-now-dick-durbin.html

Quote :

"So, given the president's professed urgency, the next day, Sept. 9, everyone asked where was his jobs legislation? And, well, it seems the urgent jobs bill hadn't actually been written yet but should be ready in a week or two. When the laughter died, the White House said on second thought the legislation would be ready for a photo op the next Monday. Well, here we are on the next Monday after that next Monday and we've just learned from the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, that actually it seems that body won't really be seriously getting into the legislation for a while yet. The Senate has some other more important business to handle. And then there's this month's congressional vacation. Here's the revealing exchange with a persistent host Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union:" CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor? DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we're going to move forward on the president's bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to... CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on? DURBIN: I think that's more realistic it would be next month. So, as of right now, "right now" uttered on Sept. 8 really means sometime at least one month later. Good thing the president's own Democratic party controls the Senate. Because, otherwise, there might be some kind of silly, unnecessary delays in deliberating Obama's urgent jobs bill that he says will surely help the nation's unemployed millions if only those Republicans don't connive to slow things down."

9/19/2011 8:47:13 AM

Solar company gets half a billion dollars in a one-time loan, goes under, right wing declares end of the "Green Jobs Myth", rants that this is what happens when the government chooses winners and losers and that there's no way solar is simply too expensive to compete with oil.

Meanwhile, oil and gas companies get their yearly $3.5-4 billion subsidy and tax cut package, keeps chugging along being the most profitable industry on planet Earth. Right wing is mum as usual because only liberals complain about oil companies and God knows it's more important to disagree with liberals than actually have consistent principles.

[Edited on September 19, 2011 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

9/19/2011 10:43:35 AM

Quote :

"Solar company"

/=/

Quote :

"oil and gas companies"

Not sayin I agree with oil companies getting the subsidy, but this is apples to oranges. The govt chose 1 company versus an industry. If BO chose huge subsidies to solar industry, and rep complained then you would have a point.

9/20/2011 9:20:00 AM

^^ I've seen what people consider subsidies for oil&gas and came to the conclusion they are anything but. The vast majority were tax breaks that all businesses have access too (depletion, amortization) or don't reduce their taxes at all, just shift them it time (depreciation), unlike the direct subsidies for solar and wind.

I am entirely against all tax breaks. If you are going to impose a tax then there should be no such thing as a tax deduction or tax credit. But what the oil&gas industry is getting is neither of these and is simultaneously paying a special tax on gasoline and utilities that only they pay, unlike solar and wind which took not just a hefty tax credit of almost half the consumer selling price but loan guarantees too, and went bust.

To be consistent, all we need to do is be against loan guarantees for oil & gas companies, which I'm pretty sure everyone here would be. As such, it is only you that is inconsistent, being in favor of loan guarantees for one industry but not another.

[Edited on September 20, 2011 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .,.]

9/20/2011 10:38:40 AM

Quote :

"As such, it is only you that is inconsistent, being in favor of loan guarantees for one industry but not another."

Inconsistent only if you're unwilling to admit further conditionalization, reasoning, etc. Ignore the fact that many scientific advancements must be made on the back of some useful distinction; simply assert that your views are the complete partition, and refuse to sharpen at all steps.

You are projecting inconsistency by being unwilling to admit more nuance than supports your narrow conservatism, reality and pragmatics be damned.

9/20/2011 11:44:30 AM

Yes, "nuance", such as lies and half truths.

The republicans subsidize this shit out of stuff too. Why not pick on that rather than making up falsehoods about an unpopular (yet fairly unsubsidized) industry just to score points for team blue? Just because you don't like them doesn't mean any tax rate below 100% is a subsidy.

9/20/2011 2:47:19 PM

Lmao yes. Tax breaks for one industry (oil and gas) that competes with another (solar) is in no way comparable to a subsidy, nope nope nope.

9/22/2011 12:09:15 PM

have they written the bill yet? you know, so we can "PASS THAT BILL!"

[Edited on September 24, 2011 at 1:40 AM. Reason : ]

9/24/2011 1:40:19 AM

^^ Not when those tax breaks are equally used by the competing industry. The tax break that allows an oil company to depreciate their drilling equipment also allows the wind industry to depreciate their wind mills and the solar industry to depreciate their factories. Meanwhile, the subsidies for solar and wind CANNOT be used by the oil & gas industry. Similarly, the special taxes paid by the oil & gas industry are only paid by them and no other business in America.

9/24/2011 11:10:17 AM

They way the oil industry is able to use some the tax breaks is fundamentally different. A solar factory would be able to deduct the cost of investment into the machines on the assembly line over the life of the machines. Oil companies are allowed to deduct from the REVENUE they extract from the well (rather than the cost of the machinery pumping oil out of the ground). It treats oil in the ground like capital equipment and it allows the tax credit to grow when gas prices are higher and oil companies are earning some of their biggest profits.



You just can't expect an industry with as much clout in Washington as big oil not to get special treatment

[Edited on September 24, 2011 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2011 12:28:47 PM

We need to remove regulation so people can get paid minimum wage to do jobs robots and the internet can do better and for free!

9/24/2011 3:55:12 PM

^^ The argument they are making seems to be that the land is worth less money now that the oil has been extracted, they are writing off that loss. I don't find this position without merit. Do you?

9/24/2011 6:25:31 PM

That's like buying an apple, eating it, then counting what you ate as a "loss".

It's not a loss, it's what you bought the apple for.

9/24/2011 7:46:02 PM

Bad metaphor. No one buys oil land for the enjoyment of selling oil, they do it to make money. If a furniture company buys wood they write off the price of the wood, because the tax is supposed to be a tax on profits, not operating revenue, so costs of production are written off. In effect, the tax code is attempting to allow the oil company to write off the price of their wood, the price paid for land with oil in it.

9/25/2011 8:53:57 AM

I was only attempting to show that tax credits for manufacturing are not the same as tax credits for extraction industries.

^Oil companies rarely own the land they are extracting on, they just lease the oil rights so the depreciation of the land isn't really a cost to them.

9/25/2011 10:33:18 AM

And in such instances where the oil company owns none of the land and is merely a driller paid on contract, they cannot deduct anything for the depreciation of oil extraction, as that tax deduction will be taken by the actual owner.

Quote :

"I was only attempting to show that tax credits for manufacturing are not the same as tax credits for extraction industries."

And all I was attempting to show was that a tax deduction taken by every extraction business in the country, be it a copper mine or coal mine, is quite different from a subsidy that can only be taken by one specific form of electricity production.

This is, of course, ignoring the difference between a tax deduction and a subsidy. Merely letting people keep the money they earned versus taking money from others to give to them. There is a natural limit to tax deductions. It would be best if we had no corporate taxes, so widespread tax deductions just get us closer to the optimal. However, subsidies take you in the opposite direction, as subsidies can only be paid by taxing others.

9/25/2011 11:05:02 AM

Do you think that Ethanol is subsidized? People rant about stupid ethanol subsidies all the time (rightfully so)

but the primary "subsidy" is the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit.

There is a difference between tax credits and direct subsidies but their effect on the market is the same




But getting back on topic, I still strongly support solar subsidies and all this noise about Solyndra is way overblown

9/25/2011 11:58:04 AM

^ Well, technically, yes, ethanol is subsidized. The government didn't just waive the gasoline tax depending on how much was Ethanol. The government is cutting a check to the ethanol producer in the amount of the tax. In effect, slapping a tax on Exxon and giving the money to ethanol producers is a subsidy.

Quote :

"I still strongly support solar subsidies and all this noise about Solyndra is way overblown"

The former leads to the latter. Meanwhile, I strongly condemn all corporate subsidies, even more strongly condemn Government backed loans, therefore I don't believe enough is being made of Solyndra. I believe Americans in general agree with me in condemning crony capitalism, they just weren't going to make an issue about crony capitalism until it became a visible problem, which Solyndra is. Change is finally coming, and government backed loans will be much harder to obtain in the future.

9/25/2011 8:30:56 PM

Quote :

"I believe Americans in general agree with me in condemning crony capitalism, they just weren't going to make an issue about crony capitalism until it became a visible problem, which Solyndra is."

I don't see it as crony capitalism. America badly needs some hi-tech manufacturing to start taking root for our future. Did you know that America is actually running a trade surplus with China right now in the solar industry -- it probably wont last long. Solyndra's technology could have possibly solidified America as a leader in the solar industry if China hadn't dumped billions into their solar companies or if the price of silicon hadn't dropped like a rock (Solyndra's technology used less silicon, I believe, which made it cheaper). I personally believe we need to start thinking about picking winners and losers if we want to compete with the rest of the world, because they are already doing it.

If you are super worried about crony capitalism then solyndra should probably be at the bottom of your list of worries. Its rhetoric to shade green energy as unsustainable economically so they can continue subsidizing the people that fund their campaigns.

Quote :

"government backed loans will be much harder to obtain in the future. "

Wrong. Government loans to green industry companies will be harder to obtain, while ignoring the various other antiquated complexes that are actually dragging us down.

9/25/2011 9:00:47 PM

has the bill been written, yet? you know, the one we are supposed to "PASS RIGHT NOW!!!"

9/25/2011 9:39:36 PM

Quote :

"America badly needs some hi-tech manufacturing to start taking root for our future."

And you think we will get there by giving half a billion dollars of tax payer money to the Presidents close friends and supporters? How about we instead just lower taxes for everyone and allow our existing manufacturing companies to grow?

Quote :

"I personally believe we need to start thinking about picking winners and losers if we want to compete with the rest of the world, because they are already doing it."

So we pick the same shit they picked? The world only needs so much solar panel production capacity. If the Chinese are subsidizing the industry so much, then why the fuck should we waste our money in that industry? Both of us building half billion dollar plants will just lead to over-production, a price collapse, and bankruptcy first for the producers and then for the governments throwing good money after bad.

The rest of the world is subsidizing solar panels, let their tax payers pay for it. We can't stop them, we are bankrupt so we can't even hope to win, so why engage in a subsidization war?

Subsidization through industrial policy has allowed Japan and Korea to pick their industries, but only because they were the only ones subsidizing. In today's world where everyone is picking and choosing, picking and choosing is a fools errand, because there will always be someone else subsidizing whatever industry you chose, leading to excess supply and bankruptcy. The only way to win is to subsidize everything by saving the subsidies and lowering taxes on everyone, so whatever business is left unloved by others (and therefore taxed heavily overseas) will succeed here.

9/26/2011 9:33:00 AM

Quote :

"How about we instead just lower taxes for everyone and allow our existing manufacturing companies to grow? "

Existing manufacturing isn't growing though. The projected growth in solar (and similar industries) is way above and beyond most other sectors.

Quote :

"The world only needs so much solar panel production capacity."

Yeah, and its going to be a shit load in just a few years.

Quote :

"If the Chinese are subsidizing the industry so much, then why the fuck should we waste our money in that industry?"

because even despite the money they dumped into their companies we are still running a trade surplus with them in this sector and we badly need a more balanced trade system with China. America offers something that China hasn't been able to tap into (yet) -- I'd say its the high end research going on in the solar industry which is exactly what the the loan to Solyndra was meant to support.

Quote :

"we are bankrupt "

We are in a tight spot at the moment I can admit that, but we could easily afford it if we just shuffled some priorities (see the graph I posted above)

Quote :

"so whatever business is left unloved by others (and therefore taxed heavily overseas) will succeed here. "

What you are telling me is that we can expect the financial "industry" to continue raping our country with no actual real value added to the economy in the future

9/26/2011 11:03:29 AM

Quote :

"Existing manufacturing isn't growing though"

Effect, meet Solyndra, the cause.

Quote :

"we badly need a more balanced trade system with China"

Nothing we do with industrial policy can balance that trade. This imbalance will exist as long as America maintains a trade surplus in capital transfers (exporting government bonds to China). Yet again, the situation you lament is a product of your own position: U.S. Government borrowing to spend on subsidies.

Quote :

"but we could easily afford it if we just shuffled some priorities"

Nope. Even scrapping everyone of the programs you dislike above would still leave us with a significant deficit.

Quote :

"What you are telling me is that we can expect the financial "industry" to continue raping our country with no actual real value added to the economy in the future"

Having the government pay even more interest annually to the nation's financial "industry" is not going to curtail its power. On the contrary, there is a causal link between the growth of government over the last decade and the growth of Wallstreet influence. If you want to smash finance, slashing the deficit is the only avenue open to you.

9/26/2011 8:10:42 PM

Quote :

"Effect, meet Solyndra, the cause. "

Yes, the drop in the bucket we direct toward renewables is holding our entire manufacturing economy back. Nevermind all of the other factors -- one of which is energy price shocks

Quote :

"Nothing we do with industrial policy can balance that trade."

China helped create the current trade deficit using subsidies. A quick google search shows they have been subsidizing textiles for years, with a big influx around the early 90s, you know when they first started to take over the industry. We can use policy to balance it back out.

For some good reading check out all of the current challenges the US has submitted to the WTO on China's undisclosed subsidies. Its common to think that their low wages, or lax environmental rules, or lack of unions, etc is why some much manufacturing went to China, and those may have played a role, but the reality is they are also shoveling money into most of their most competitive sectors (oh yeah currency manipulation helps some too)

Quote :

"Yet again, the situation you lament is a product of your own position: U.S. Government borrowing to spend on subsidies. "

Quote :

"Nope. Even scrapping everyone of the programs you dislike above would still leave us with a significant deficit. "

Disagree. We have more than enough room to shuffle our priorities. We could start by ending just a few of the tax credits to oil companies as was mentioned earlier in the thread, withdraw from the wars, defense spending, etc etc etc. Any single one of these could create enough money to compete, and probably provide a little extra to help stabilize the deficit.

This is a different topic but IMO the deficit is not the problem, its the GROWTH in the deficit that has some worried. If we stabilize our spending and stop deficit growth, then we can chip away at deficit slowly over time, you know, after the economy starts to grow again.

Quote :

" If you want to smash finance, slashing the deficit is the only avenue open to you."

Some straight forward regulation and perhaps a financial transaction tax would probably do the job.


I'm going to end with this and then I'm done here. As I said above, Oil price shocks are creating a drag on our economic growth and will probably continue to do so until we can lessen our reliance. Its effect is being mostly overlooked. If you believe experts in the sector, renewables are going to pick up a large portion of the slack in the future. Our economy needs energy to grow and we need growth to start chipping away at the deficit. If we are buying American made renewables to fuel our transition then there is some potential for self perpetuating growth. If a majority of our renewables come from China, then our deficit will only continue to grow.

9/27/2011 9:13:33 AM

Quote :

"Yes, the drop in the bucket we direct toward renewables is holding our entire manufacturing economy back."

Yes, this drop in the bucket, mixed with all the other drops in the bucket, managed to fill the bucket.

Quote :

"China helped create the current trade deficit using subsidies. A quick google search shows they have been subsidizing textiles for years, with a big influx around the early 90s, you know when they first started to take over the industry."

No amount of subsidization on China's part can create our trade deficit. I know this is strange to you. But our average transaction deficit is zero. It has always been zero. Nearly every dollar leaving the country, comes back some-how. Our massive deficit in trade is entirely offset by our massive capital surplus (includes foreigners buying U.S. Treasuries). If you subsidized the shit out of one manufacturing industry, say solar panels, and managed to smash the Chinese in that one sector, exporting solar panels all over the world thanks to lavish subsidies and lavish deficits, all other US manufacturing would shrink to balance it out. The books will balance, and to do that prices would adjust to kill off some other US manufacturing sector, such as planes or cars or machine tools. As such, all you did was trade unsubsidized productive business for one massively unproductive business, making Americans poorer.

Quote :

"you know, after the economy starts to grow again."

Economic growth is a product of productivity growth. Having Americans import subsidized foreign solar panels, to us, looks like productivity growth, as the negative effects of the subsidies are being suffered by foreigners. However, producing subsidized solar panels at home is productivity destroying, which will only delay recovery.

Quote :

"As I said above, Oil price shocks are creating a drag on our economic growth and will probably continue to do so until we can lessen our reliance."

We have suffered price shocks before without such a pro-longed recession. The cause is straight forward, net private investment is still nearly zero. It seems logical that a sudden influx of ""bold, persistent experimentation" on behalf of the government would chill private investment for such a long time. But a price shock is sudden and then over, fairly easy to price into private plans. As such, while I have no doubt a severe price shock can cause a recession, to cause such a long recession is just not credible.

9/27/2011 9:51:44 AM

To me, it seems like you have less of a problem with subsidies and more of a problem with uncontrolled deficit spending. I came here to defend the Solyndra loan and other similar loans. It is a fact that if we change our priorities we can easily afford to make those loans without adding to the deficit which makes all of your deficit arguments irrelevant to me. I'm not trying to defend the subsidies we give oil companies etc.

9/27/2011 10:51:38 AM

Keeping in mind that we do not subsidize the oil companies in any way, we actually have special taxes that only they pay, there are more reasons to be against subsidies than merely there impact upon the deficit. I am against deficits because I am against taxes, and Deficits Are Future Taxes (DAFT).

Because of limited resources, subsidies cannot cause new business, they can only displace otherwise existing business. As such, subsidizing any industry will result in the erosion of unsubsidized business. Given that the subsidized business would not exist without the subsidy, it clearly consumes more resources (in dollar terms) than it produces, thus making Americans poorer than they otherwise would be if the resources had instead remained in use by the unsubsidized businesses, which produced more than they consumed (in dollar terms).

So, no, I am against subsidies because they make our society poorer than it otherwise would be. That this impoverishment also increases the deficit (doubly so, as profitable tax-paying businesses go away to be replaced with subsidized business that does not pay taxes) makes all of our problems even worse.

9/27/2011 11:18:35 AM

If you look at it historically when Oil companies were just becoming established they recieved more help than renewables have when they are trying to establish themselves.


http://i.bnet.com/blogs/dbl_energy_subsidies_paper.pdf?tag=content;siu-container

Quote :

"Because of limited resources, subsidies cannot cause new business, they can only displace otherwise existing business. As such, subsidizing any industry will result in the erosion of unsubsidized business."

Have oil companies and nuclear plants created wealth with the energy they provided over the last 100 years? Nuclear certainly wouldn't be here without subsidy and while oil is cheap enough it would have still been competitive, they obviously had a lot of help. Its not impossible to have a return on investment once the business is established

[Edited on September 27, 2011 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2011 12:01:20 PM

Quote :

"Have oil companies and nuclear plants created wealth with the energy they provided over the last 100 years?"

I suspect nuclear has not.

And yet again, what you are calling subsidies for oil & gas are not subsidies, but special taxation above and beyond that paid by other resource sectors (the first tax on gasoline was imposed in 1919).

In your linked pdf, the only evidence of a subsidy is not a subsidy at all, but a tax loophole apparently open to all resource extraction owners, be they copper mines or coal mines. Or, for that matter, wind and solar plant owners. The difference, of course, is that wind and solar plant owners actually lose money every year, so this particular tax loophole (or any tax loophole) is of no use to them.

The other subsidies they refer to are not even a tax break, but on page 14 they count a friggin' tax on coal as a subsidy...for coal. An import tariff on coal, which raised revenue for the government and drove up the price people had to pay for coal, is counted as a subsidy of coal in the statistics for your graph. They also go on to include land grants to railroads in their statistics for coal subsidization, railroads which at the time of the grant were burning wood.

But keep in mind, two wrong's do not make a right. Even if we were subsidizing oil&gas, the solution is not to subsidize solar and wind, but to stop subsidizing oil&gas. Subsidies encourage unprofitable (bad) behavior, and should be avoided whenever possible.

9/27/2011 12:55:30 PM

Quote :

"In your linked pdf, the only evidence of a subsidy is not a subsidy at all, but a tax loophole apparently open to all resource extraction owners, be they copper mines or coal mines. Or, for that matter, wind and solar plant owners. The difference, of course, is that wind and solar plant owners actually lose money every year, so this particular tax loophole (or any tax loophole) is of no use to them. "

They are subsidies. For "intagible drilling costs" they get the upfront expense deducted rather than having to depreciate it over time like other extraction industries. Wind and solar can't get those.

There is a major difference between percentage depletion allowance (which extraction industries get, except timber) when compared with cost depletion (which is what would be comparable to capital equipment in the wind or solar industry). Oil and gas get to apply the percentage depletion to 100% of their revenues while other extraction industries only get to apply it to 50%. Its a subsidy.

Quote :

"An import tariff on coal,"

Because they were looking at policies that increased domestic production which is exactly what an import tariff would do. Its exactly comparable to tax breaks for domestic oil production and domestic nuclear energy policy

Quote :

"is counted as a subsidy of coal in the statistics for your graph"

Coal isn't even included in the graph.

Quote :

"They also go on to include land grants to railroads in their statistics for coal subsidization,"

Railroads were and still are the primary transport of coal. Its the equivalent of our government building oil pipelines from Alaska.

Quote :

"But keep in mind, two wrong's do not make a right. Even if we were subsidizing oil&gas, the solution is not to subsidize solar and wind, but to stop subsidizing oil&gas. Subsidies encourage unprofitable (bad) behavior, and should be avoided whenever possible. "

I actually might be ok with this if we regulated CO2

9/27/2011 2:00:42 PM

Quote :

"Oil and gas get to apply the percentage depletion to 100% of their revenues while other extraction industries only get to apply it to 50%. Its a subsidy."

Such does not sound credible. The purpose of such a write-off is to allow for the depreciation of the land. It would make no sense to only allow someone to write off 50% of the value of the copper they mined. If this is so, then the solution should be to extend the tax deduction to 100% for everyone, not classify it as a subsidy for the souls lucky enough not to be abused by the IRS.

Quote :

"I actually might be ok with this if we regulated CO2"

And if we don't, you are going to continue arguing in favor of subsidization of big business?

9/27/2011 4:20:31 PM