President Kills Solar Tax Credits - Democrats Give Up Easily

[Truth_and_Power]

We have got to get this *&^(*^% guy out of office before he completely ruins this country. What the hell is his problem? Is the country going to increase revenues by killing these tax credits or something? What possible motivation can there be for this besides "My Owners Tell Me To"???

Tax credit expiry endangers wind, solar expansion (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1962115720071220?rpc=64)

The White House objected to the tax package because it was mostly funded by revoking tax incentives from big oil and gas producers like Exxon Mobil Corp.[hr]Basically this is saying, "all other things equal, we prefer oil over solar"

[ECW]

When the Master speaks, George Bush obeys. Don't you know that by now, T&P? In every instance where Bush has been free to make a choice between what was good for the people and what was good for big business, he comes down on the side of big business EVERY TIME. What else is new? Nothing. Same s**t, different day. It's the motto of the USS Chimpy.

[K-D-K-D-K]

We have got to get this *&^(*^% guy out of office before he completely ruins this country. What the hell is his problem? Is the country going to increase revenues by killing these tax credits or something? What possible motivation can there be for this besides "My Owners Tell Me To"???

Tax credit expiry endangers wind, solar expansion (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1962115720071220?rpc=64)

The White House objected to the tax package because it was mostly funded by revoking tax incentives from big oil and gas producers like Exxon Mobil Corp.[hr]Basically this is saying, "all other things equal, we prefer oil over solar"
I am glad for this what Bush did. He achieved us over 35 billion in tax cuts for the Oil and Gas Industry which helps my Drilling Co out tremendously by giving me tax incintives on purchasing leases to drill on here in Louisiana and Alabama and providing me with less taxes taken out of royalties in return. Solar and Wind is not the answer for complete reliance on and it wont be for years to come. This is why Bush needs 4 more years to prevent a liberal treehugger from gaining office in the White House.

[bishop]

what tax credits?? all of this is being funded by deficit spending.

i'm sure that if the dems simply retained the deficit-financed credits for the oil companies, they could've also won their deficit-financed credits for solar/wind. what does it matter how much we borrow, so long as china's willing to pony up the money, right?

[Truth_and_Power]

what tax credits?? all of this is being funded by deficit spending.

i'm sure that if the dems simply retained the deficit-financed credits for the oil companies, they could've also won their deficit-financed credits for solar/wind. what does it matter how much we borrow, so long as china's willing to pony up the money, right?


Yep. Their MILD attempt to be fiscally responsible led to the veto threat.

[Keith Hamburger]

All forms of alternative energy should stand or fail on their own merits. Any knowledge of basic economics will show that distortions in the market through government meddling will result in suboptimal solutions to the myriad of problems facing society.

One example is subsidies for ethanol increasing the cost of food and leading to greater levels of hunger in poor societies.

Economics uses prices to identify all of the costs and benefits to society of a given action. If the government interferes in that there is no benchmark by which to determine the costs and benefits of a given action.

Of course, for that to work, all of the other meddling in the energy markets would have to end as well. When we're fighting wars over commodities we have extreme distortions there. To then combat those distortions through additional meddling, say, tax credits for solar power, means that no one can know in any way whether any action taken in the energy market is beneficial or not.

Government meddling always ends up being used to justify additional government meddling. Government grows exponentially by calling a situation a "crisis" which justifies government involvement. But, that involvement always creates additional "crises" which, once you've accepted that government is the solution to the problems we face will always result in more governmental actions, resulting in additional "crises", and so on in an endless loop of greater control and loss of freedom.

Without free markets what is the criteria used to justify spending?

Without accurate feedback such as market price, how do we determine what is a valid action and what is not?

Is every action taken supposed to be just a whim of the politicians or the "majority" of the people? (or, in actuality, the majority that take an interest in a given topic. farmers will take an interest in farm subsidies while everyone else will not pay much attention. if the majority of farmers want the government to give them money, that's what will usually happen.)

Keith

[Truth_and_Power]

All forms of alternative energy should stand or fail on their own merits. Any knowledge of basic economics will show that distortions in the market through government meddling will result in suboptimal solutions to the myriad of problems facing society.

One example is subsidies for ethanol increasing the cost of food and leading to greater levels of hunger in poor societies.

Economics uses prices to identify all of the costs and benefits to society of a given action. If the government interferes in that there is no benchmark by which to determine the costs and benefits of a given action.

Of course, for that to work, all of the other meddling in the energy markets would have to end as well. When we're fighting wars over commodities we have extreme distortions there. To then combat those distortions through additional meddling, say, tax credits for solar power, means that no one can know in any way whether any action taken in the energy market is beneficial or not.

Government meddling always ends up being used to justify additional government meddling. Government grows exponentially by calling a situation a "crisis" which justifies government involvement. But, that involvement always creates additional "crises" which, once you've accepted that government is the solution to the problems we face will always result in more governmental actions, resulting in additional "crises", and so on in an endless loop of greater control and loss of freedom.

Without free markets what is the criteria used to justify spending?

Without accurate feedback such as market price, how do we determine what is a valid action and what is not?

Is every action taken supposed to be just a whim of the politicians or the "majority" of the people? (or, in actuality, the majority that take an interest in a given topic. farmers will take an interest in farm subsidies while everyone else will not pay much attention. if the majority of farmers want the government to give them money, that's what will usually happen.)

Keith


Yeah I guess if we were going to just repeal the tax credits on all forms of energy and stop fighting resource wars, perhaps I could see not subsidising solar/wind. In addition you want to make sure the full cost of the pollution created is factored in to each form of energy production.

[Keith Hamburger]

Yeah I guess if we were going to just repeal the tax credits on all forms of energy and stop fighting resource wars, perhaps I could see not subsidising solar/wind. In addition you want to make sure the full cost of the pollution created is factored in to each form of energy production.

I can't argue with that and would not oppose clear laws based on absolute property rights that address pollution and costs to the property owners. Those laws would have to compensate the property owners that are damaged by the pollution, however, and not just fill the government's pockets with fines.

Organizations like the EPA, however, do nothing to compensate property owners for damages by polluters and often force property owners to accept a certain level of pollution with no recourse. That isn't factoring in the cost of pollution in any way and is extremely counterproductive in the long run in the same way that subsidies and all other market distortions are.

Keith

[bishop]

Yep. Their MILD attempt to be fiscally responsible led to the veto threat.

mild is putting it lightly - i prefer the term "flacid" when thinking of the dems.

also, this "attempt" is a wolf in sheep's clothing. you don't see the dems exerting any restraint whatsoever when it comes to deficit-spending for their favorite pork projects. in fact, the dems are looking to outdo the republicans when it comes to debt-financed pork.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1503.cfm

it's my fervent wish that congress simply disappear. they'd do more good for the country if they simply did nothing at all (especially when it comes to saddling americans with debt and war).

[Truth_and_Power]

Yep. Their MILD attempt to be fiscally responsible led to the veto threat.

mild is putting it lightly - i prefer the term "flacid" when thinking of the dems.

also, this "attempt" is a wolf in sheep's clothing. you don't see the dems exerting any restraint whatsoever when it comes to deficit-spending for their favorite pork projects. in fact, the dems are looking to outdo the republicans when it comes to debt-financed pork.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1503.cfm

it's my fervent wish that congress simply disappear. they'd do more good for the country if they simply did nothing at all (especially when it comes to saddling americans with debt and war).



If they disappeared it would be 100% up to bush and we would be at war with atleast 4 countries right now instead of only 2.

[bishop]

heh.. what an accomplishment! maybe we should have more dems in office so we can continue to remain in iraq indefinitely?

[Truth_and_Power]

heh.. what an accomplishment! maybe we should have more dems in office so we can continue to remain in iraq indefinitely?


Maybe we should have Ron Paul in office so we can get the president to actually lead in a productive way.

[lily]

"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy," Bush told
Americans, who are paying more than $2 a gallon for gasoline. "Here we have
a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from
unstable parts of the world."

"The best way to break this addiction is through technology," he said,
adding that technological advances will help achieve a "great goal: to
replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by
2025."

Bush SOTU 2006. But getting back on topic, why would Bush want to cut the
free money to the people who got him elected? This war is already paying off for Hunt oil.....one of his biggest contributors.


YEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWW!

[K-D-K-D-K]

heh.. what an accomplishment! maybe we should have more dems in office so we can continue to remain in iraq indefinitely?


Maybe we should have Ron Paul in office so we can get the president to actually lead in a productive way.
Ron Paul is a Oil and Gas supporter in Texas.

[bishop]

i support paul, and have donated to his campaign.

paul wouldn't meddle with the economy, be it oil, solar, wind, whatever... i.e., paul wouldn't continue to employ the brand of corporate welfare that the republicans and democrats have been using for decades now.

you wouldn't even need the "benevolent" hand of the government giving you tax credits if you didn't have to pay income taxes altogether...

[Osborn F. Enready]

KDKDK said:
Ron Paul is a Oil and Gas supporter in Texas.

Ron Paul is a supporter of the Constitution, and there isn't a politician in the spectrum that has a reasonable goal that DOESN'T support oil and gas to some degree, since we are DEPENDENT on it, for now.

Regardless, I agree with Bishop on his points, that these credits are just MORE deficit spending, and that is NOT going to help us fix any of our current problems, or future problems.

I fully support solar and wind, as well as other alternative energy sources (including hempoline and hemp based fuels and plastics).

I haven't seen a democrat yet that is serious about changing our fuel and energy dependency issues, and whatever you do, don't say AL GORE, as he is a mouthpiece, not a leader.

[Truth_and_Power]

Yeah but what would the reason be for not putting solar and other forms of energy on an equal capitalist playing field? Subsidies for oil but none for solar? Why?? The whole argument against solar is the economics, so why not have an equal playing field?

[Mark L Hamburger]

Neither should have subsidies, there should be no government subsidies for anything whatsoever.

[Truth_and_Power]

Neither should have subsidies, there should be no government subsidies for anything whatsoever.


That's fine, but I have yet to hear a reasonable argument for subsidising oil and not solar.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Took the words right out of my mouth there Mark! ;)

The subsidy nazi says:

NO SUBSIDY FOR YOU!

[Truth_and_Power]

Took the words right out of my mouth there Mark! ;)

The subsidy nazi says:

NO SUBSIDY FOR YOU!


Well if you're going there why not go all the way.

COME BACK ONE YEAR!

[Pookie]

Oh, boo hoo. We saw this coming in the 70s. Shame on all of us for not coming up with solutions. After all, we had at least 20 years.
Now someone kick Bush in the ass and let's stop the damn fighting over points!! Geez!! Listen! Understand the ideals and for Gods sakes, go do something or shut up!
Pookie

[Truth_and_Power]

KDKDK said:
Ron Paul is a Oil and Gas supporter in Texas.

Ron Paul is a supporter of the Constitution, and there isn't a politician in the spectrum that has a reasonable goal that DOESN'T support oil and gas to some degree, since we are DEPENDENT on it, for now.


BTW, wouldn't eliminating the IRS mean eliminating tax credits in general, thus putting solar & oil on a level playing field as I am suggesting? If so, then Ron Paul again fits my common sense view.[hr]
Oh, boo hoo. We saw this coming in the 70s. Shame on all of us for not coming up with solutions. After all, we had at least 20 years.
Now someone kick Bush in the ass and let's stop the damn fighting over points!! Geez!! Listen! Understand the ideals and for Gods sakes, go do something or shut up!
Pookie


Burn cats for fuel! Highly efficient and reduces noise pollution as well.

[Osborn F. Enready]

T&P said:
BTW, wouldn't eliminating the IRS mean eliminating tax credits in general, thus putting solar & oil on a level playing field as I am suggesting? If so, then Ron Paul again fits my common sense view.


Under Pauls plan, it certainly would.

Don't forget however, even if we can get Paul elected, we, and he still have a house and senate full of corrupt partisans to deal with. Its a long road to liberty, but the goal makes the trip more than worthy.

[Mark L Hamburger]

KDKDK said:
Ron Paul is a Oil and Gas supporter in Texas.

Ron Paul is a supporter of the Constitution, and there isn't a politician in the spectrum that has a reasonable goal that DOESN'T support oil and gas to some degree, since we are DEPENDENT on it, for now.


BTW, wouldn't eliminating the IRS mean eliminating tax credits in general, thus putting solar & oil on a level playing field as I am suggesting? If so, then Ron Paul again fits my common sense view


Yes, this is correct.

[potter]

The solar industry isn't nearly big enough to provide the kind of bribes needed to influence Congress and especially Bush to back them in any way.

Bush's comments on alternate energy sources were only uttered because that's what he thinks people want to hear. He has no intention of subsidizing the 'competition" in any way shape or form. He works for the oil and weapons industry only, not the people of the U.S.

[Truth_and_Power]

The solar industry isn't nearly big enough to provide the kind of bribes needed to influence Congress and especially Bush to back them in any way.

Bush's comments on alternate energy sources were only uttered because that's what he thinks people want to hear. He has no intention of subsidizing the 'competition" in any way shape or form. He works for the oil and weapons industry only, not the people of the U.S.


That's not true he works for the pharm industry too. And there's no reason to confine your accusations to Bush, I'm pretty sure that goes around and comes around in respect to most candidates from both parties.

[potter]

The solar industry isn't nearly big enough to provide the kind of bribes needed to influence Congress and especially Bush to back them in any way.

Bush's comments on alternate energy sources were only uttered because that's what he thinks people want to hear. He has no intention of subsidizing the 'competition" in any way shape or form. He works for the oil and weapons industry only, not the people of the U.S.


That's not true he works for the pharm industry too. And there's no reason to confine your accusations to Bush, I'm pretty sure that goes around and comes around in respect to most candidates from both parties.



DOH!!! Duly noted.....:worship: