No they don't. Take a quick look at budget deficit history over the last 20 years. The last budget written by Republicans and signed into law, had a deficit of 165 billion dollars, and the trend was rapidly shrinking. You can tell which party is in control just by looking at deficit trends.
Bullshit. Dems' were not willing to accept any "compromise" that did not involve tax increases. They already got their tax increases. Props to you though for not using the term revenue.
Seriously? If you believe that all profits belong, first and foremost, to the government only to be doled out and expended as it sees fit, I can see how you might have trouble differentiating. Did you make money last year? I think it is wrong that the government spent money by not taking everything you made.
Your math isn't sensible. You do realize the purpose of solar subsidies is to get the industry off the ground, right? Per-megawatt cost means nothing. Going by your logic of what is good value, the very first Tesla cost millions of dollars. Never mind how much less expensive the second one was, nobody wants to buy the first one so why bother.
It's not working.. The first Tesla was subsidized with DOE loans. It is morally wrong to make you or me or anyone else pay for that first car, for the benefit of private profit, without receiving a tangible benefit in return. When everybody is forced to sacrifice for the common good, or in this case the benefit of a private company, how is that commonly good? Everyone is just worse off.
Did you refuse to even attempt the exercise? Do you think every profitable company has a room filled with gold coins, with a sign on the door that says "profits". And that executives spend their lunch hours bathing in them Scrooge McDuck style? Oh, trickle-down economics. That term is a crutch for you, it allows you to avoid thinking.
It helps to quote your opponent's argument in full when countering. That way it doesn't look like you are ignoring portions.
Actually, the TIME article claims 68,000,000,000 goes to renewable energy, and 409,000,000,000 goes to fossil fuels. But that number is misleading in fossil fuel's case, because the government never gave it to them. It simply didn't take it in the first place.
By the way, 68,000,000,000 is a large number that I fully comprehend. So is 225,000,000,000, which is the amount we will spend this year paying interest on the debt. And so is 1,200,000,000,000, which is the amount we will spend this year that we don't have. And so is 5,600,000,000,000, which is the amount of our debt that is held by foreign governments. We can go on, there are several even larger figures that I could bring up.
I agree with most of that sentiment. But what do you think happens with those profits? Mentally trace them as they wind their way through the economy. When a company gets a taxpayer handout, literally a check, and then goes bankrupt and is sold off to China, who benefits from that?
It doesn't, end them. The oil industry receives subsidies in the form of standard tax breaks. Solyndra, and other renewable energy companies receive their subsidies in the form of checks. There's a difference.
Did you miss the part where I pointed out there's about 68 billion in subsidies every year going to fossil fuel producers, and renewable energy gets about a sixth of that? And as long as we're talking about "taxpayer subsidies", how about we discuss the storied and terrible history of Standard Oil, which became the first modern monopoly in the world through predatory business practices, rampant exploitation of natural resources, workers, price manipulation, etc. It was the catalyst for the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its later dismantlement by the government at significant cost to taxpayers. Most of our domestic oil producers can still trace their roots back to this monolithic entity that at one point controlled over 90% of domestic production and 80% of sales.
Not at all. Renewable energy only produces a few percent of the power in this country. I'll accept your definition of subsidies for the sake of argument. If they only produce a few percent of the power what entitles them to 1/6th of the subsidies? How about we just stop subsidizing altogether.
See, the problem with your logic is that it's myopic: You think taxpayer dollars only come from government subsidies. But whether you're paying for it due to legislation, or due to malignant business practices, you're still paying for it.
And you accuse me of being illogical? You can't just ignore facts and make up definitions. When you buy a product from a company that is not a tax. Tax is money that is taken from you by force by a government, either willingly or unwillingly.
The delineation between the two is artificial and arbitrary. Standard Oil, if it existed today, would probably own close to a third of the country, and have an operating revenue of over a trillion USD. That trillion a year revenue would be coming out of our pockets.
It doesn't. But I'll accept your scenario for the sake of argument. Fuel was far less expensive, adjusted for inflation, with Standard Oil than it is today.
In short, your logic is bullshit: Every major infrastructure industry in this country depended on the government to get up and running, or to expand to a societal level of influence. Every. Last. One.
The thing about taxpayer provided infrastructure is that everyone is supposed to be able to use it. When the Government gets involved and starts picking favored children to be spoiled with our money, that violates the principles this country was founded on. Level the playing field, don't tilt it.
OK, so tell me when fossil fuels, oil, coal or NG were ever subsidized to the tune of $750 per MW adjusted for inflation of course to make it fair. Were they ever even subsidized at $10 per MW? I highly doubt it. Solar is currently subsidized at a rate more than 1000 times higher per unit of electricity generated.
And because fossil fuels did this largely without the help of taxpayer subsidies, we have a mature profitable industry. As long as solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear are dependent on handouts, they will never achieve that status.
No. If your dog is so fat it cant get off the couch, you give it less food to fix it. If you get terrible gas mileage because your car is filled with 500 lbs of junk that's been in there for three years, you remove the junk. If your company is failing because you spend too much on catering and travel, you spend less on catering and do more teleconferencing.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, show me what spending cuts were on the table.
No they don't. Take a quick look at budget deficit history over the last 20 years. The last budget written by Republicans and signed into law, had a deficit of 165 billion dollars, and the trend was rapidly shrinking. You can tell which party is in control just by looking at deficit trends.
We need to stop calling tax increases, revenue. An increase in revenue is not always the result of an increase in tax rates.
So you are admitting that Democrats were not willing to accept any deal that did not contain tax increases? I see how that works.
Bullshit. Dems' were not willing to accept any "compromise" that did not involve tax increases. They already got their tax increases. Props to you though for not using the term revenue.
Holy crap, where did your argument go?
Solar, wind, and ethanol industries have been receiving subsidies for decades, how long will they be infants and when can we start looking at costs?
Seriously? If you believe that all profits belong, first and foremost, to the government only to be doled out and expended as it sees fit, I can see how you might have trouble differentiating. Did you make money last year? I think it is wrong that the government spent money by not taking everything you made.
Your math isn't sensible. You do realize the purpose of solar subsidies is to get the industry off the ground, right? Per-megawatt cost means nothing. Going by your logic of what is good value, the very first Tesla cost millions of dollars. Never mind how much less expensive the second one was, nobody wants to buy the first one so why bother.
It's not working.. The first Tesla was subsidized with DOE loans. It is morally wrong to make you or me or anyone else pay for that first car, for the benefit of private profit, without receiving a tangible benefit in return. When everybody is forced to sacrifice for the common good, or in this case the benefit of a private company, how is that commonly good? Everyone is just worse off.
Fascists are so 1930's.
One method of subsidy is predicated on the ability to produce, the other is predicated on a sketchy promise to produce. There is a difference.
Did you refuse to even attempt the exercise? Do you think every profitable company has a room filled with gold coins, with a sign on the door that says "profits". And that executives spend their lunch hours bathing in them Scrooge McDuck style? Oh, trickle-down economics. That term is a crutch for you, it allows you to avoid thinking.
That was kind of my point. It's hard to call the subsidies for oil, taxpayer money, when it was never taken from the taxpayer.
Facts matter.
It helps to quote your opponent's argument in full when countering. That way it doesn't look like you are ignoring portions.
Actually, the TIME article claims 68,000,000,000 goes to renewable energy, and 409,000,000,000 goes to fossil fuels. But that number is misleading in fossil fuel's case, because the government never gave it to them. It simply didn't take it in the first place.
By the way, 68,000,000,000 is a large number that I fully comprehend. So is 225,000,000,000, which is the amount we will spend this year paying interest on the debt. And so is 1,200,000,000,000, which is the amount we will spend this year that we don't have. And so is 5,600,000,000,000, which is the amount of our debt that is held by foreign governments. We can go on, there are several even larger figures that I could bring up.
So, the TIME article is claiming that fossil fuels had 2/3 as much money budgeted to them as Defense? I smell some week old Halibut.
I agree with most of that sentiment. But what do you think happens with those profits? Mentally trace them as they wind their way through the economy. When a company gets a taxpayer handout, literally a check, and then goes bankrupt and is sold off to China, who benefits from that?
It doesn't, end them. The oil industry receives subsidies in the form of standard tax breaks. Solyndra, and other renewable energy companies receive their subsidies in the form of checks. There's a difference.
Did you miss the part where I pointed out there's about 68 billion in subsidies every year going to fossil fuel producers, and renewable energy gets about a sixth of that? And as long as we're talking about "taxpayer subsidies", how about we discuss the storied and terrible history of Standard Oil, which became the first modern monopoly in the world through predatory business practices, rampant exploitation of natural resources, workers, price manipulation, etc. It was the catalyst for the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its later dismantlement by the government at significant cost to taxpayers. Most of our domestic oil producers can still trace their roots back to this monolithic entity that at one point controlled over 90% of domestic production and 80% of sales.
Not at all. Renewable energy only produces a few percent of the power in this country. I'll accept your definition of subsidies for the sake of argument. If they only produce a few percent of the power what entitles them to 1/6th of the subsidies? How about we just stop subsidizing altogether.
See, the problem with your logic is that it's myopic: You think taxpayer dollars only come from government subsidies. But whether you're paying for it due to legislation, or due to malignant business practices, you're still paying for it.
And you accuse me of being illogical? You can't just ignore facts and make up definitions. When you buy a product from a company that is not a tax. Tax is money that is taken from you by force by a government, either willingly or unwillingly.
The delineation between the two is artificial and arbitrary. Standard Oil, if it existed today, would probably own close to a third of the country, and have an operating revenue of over a trillion USD. That trillion a year revenue would be coming out of our pockets.
It doesn't. But I'll accept your scenario for the sake of argument. Fuel was far less expensive, adjusted for inflation, with Standard Oil than it is today.
In short, your logic is bullshit: Every major infrastructure industry in this country depended on the government to get up and running, or to expand to a societal level of influence. Every. Last. One.
The thing about taxpayer provided infrastructure is that everyone is supposed to be able to use it. When the Government gets involved and starts picking favored children to be spoiled with our money, that violates the principles this country was founded on. Level the playing field, don't tilt it.
OK, so tell me when fossil fuels, oil, coal or NG were ever subsidized to the tune of $750 per MW adjusted for inflation of course to make it fair. Were they ever even subsidized at $10 per MW? I highly doubt it. Solar is currently subsidized at a rate more than 1000 times higher per unit of electricity generated.
Right, because universal health care always ends up being cheap and good.
And because fossil fuels did this largely without the help of taxpayer subsidies, we have a mature profitable industry. As long as solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear are dependent on handouts, they will never achieve that status.
That's an interesting way to look at it. But honestly, I don't see the value of that point of view.
Actually, I don't think you understand the concept of value. Subsidizing solar power to the tune of $750.00 per megawatt is not good value.
No. If your dog is so fat it cant get off the couch, you give it less food to fix it. If you get terrible gas mileage because your car is filled with 500 lbs of junk that's been in there for three years, you remove the junk. If your company is failing because you spend too much on catering and travel, you spend less on catering and do more teleconferencing.
That's right. So let's cut the problem off at the knees, and stop funding it.