Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

I said it was their main function, not the most expensive one. If you don't want to pay for it, and the baggage it entails, you shouldn't have it.

While the feds pay for national protection (ie the Armed Forces), it is local and state governments that pay for police. That is collected from state sales taxes and local property taxes, not the feds.

Doesn't matter. It's not as though only the police are needed to keep the state up and running, and property does not exist in anarchy. That's not to say the federal government isn't a bloated mess of unnecessary centralization and foreign overreach, but as long as it is, the burden's either going to be on individuals or on the states, and where do you think the states'll get their money?

Quote: 24Bingo

Doesn't matter.

Typical Bingo response. LOL!

Quote: 24Bingo

What good would the sweat of your brow be if anyone who could sway a crowd could kill you and walk away with it, or just take it while you weren't looking? With a functioning state protecting you, they can't, and that's the main function you're paying for, not roads or business subsidies. So if you don't owe the government an income or faculty tax, sure, the government has no right to the money, but then what business do they have protecting it?

Sounds a bit like he is trying to say, "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT--SOMEONE ELSE DID THAT!"

The point is those of us who are not liberal do not accept the premise that a tax cut is a handout because we believe the wealth we create is ours and what is needed for a minimalist government is what we should pay in taxes.

Liberals come from the standpoint that it is all the government's wealth and a tax cut is just giving a person more of what would have been the government's.

If the left had their way, any transaction from your paycheck to buying a car or house would first go through a government escrow then be sent to you after all taxes were taken.

Sorry, when taxes are outright cut, or more fair treatment is given to oil companies drilling a well, that merely means that the looters in society have to take less wealth from the rightful owners. When subsidies are made to say solar, that means the looters succeeded in stealing from the rightful owner to give it to someone else.

Except that deviating from generally approved accounting principles is not FAIR treatment at all. It's preferential treatment given to a particular industry who doesn't need it, brought about by lobbyists. Obviously you don't understand the concepts of accrual accounting and why it is far better to recognize expenses spent on an asset over its useful life. The government gives preferential treatment to oil companies by allowing for a tax credit OVER and ABOVE this.

What would be even better was to induce domestic investment by lowering the corporate tax rates so that more multinationals invest and pay taxes in the United States. Dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and taking away loopholes would simplify tax code, reduce red tape, and stimulate investment in America again.

Quote: boymimbo

Except that deviating from generally approved accounting principles is not FAIR treatment at all. It's preferential treatment given to a particular industry who doesn't need it, brought about by lobbyists. Obviously you don't understand the concepts of accrual accounting and why it is far better to recognize expenses spent on an asset over its useful life. The government gives preferential treatment to oil companies by allowing for a tax credit OVER and ABOVE this.

I understand it completely. I also understand oil wells are not the same as buildings as I have tried to explain over and over. I also know that the same asset can be written off over and over. I buy a rental house and write it off over 30 years. I sell it and pay the tax on my gain from my now-zero cost basis. Next guy writes it off over 30 years. Same asset. Are you in favor of eliminating this "unfair" write-off as well?

Quote:

What would be even better was to induce domestic investment by lowering the corporate tax rates so that more multinationals invest and pay taxes in the United States. Dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and taking away loopholes would simplify tax code, reduce red tape, and stimulate investment in America again.

No problem here except I would lower it to 15%.

Different asset - the 30 year old house is not the same as the new house. By 30 years, you've replaced all of the major components of the property through leasehold improvements and maintenance. And if you continue to own the home, you no longer depreciate the asset. The actual tax rate for rental homes is a double declining balance over 39.5 years for tax purposes.

Oil wells are not the same as buildings obviously, but for any asset, it is proper accounting treatment to depreciate the cost of the asset over the estimated life of the asset, not when incurred. It is different as well since it is a natural resource and you may choose to use the resource (or not) depending on the cost to extract that oil vs worldwide prices and other supplies. For example, a well that produces oil at $40/bbl is more expensive than a new well that costs $20/bbl. You may decide to stop production at that well in favor of the new well. But there are accounting rules for that as well which the government supercedes.

Giving a preferential treatment to a single industry is unfair.

Quote: AZDuffman

The point is those of us who are not liberal do not accept the premise that a tax cut is a handout because we believe the wealth we create is ours and what is needed for a minimalist government is what we should pay in taxes.

What's already being taken in taxes is the government's wealth by definition - that's what taxes are - and so making special exceptions is indeed giving people money. Calling it "more fair treatment" is willfully ignorant - the oil companies are the looters. Solar systems may actually give something back, because, and I hate to break this to you, it turns out that that vast conspiracy you're dreaming of is impossible, and certainly not demonstrated.

Actually, to be fair, a subsidy is different than a tax break. Subsidies are given in advance to promote activity (free money), while taxes are enacted on activities already in place. You don't pay taxes if you don't earn money (income taxes), don't have an asset (property taxes), or don't spend (consumption tax).

The government is providing loans, which act as a subsidy if unpaid or defaulted, but it acts more as in investment. So far, on 34.4 billion in loan guarantees, the default rate is 2% on these loans, with Solyndra being the poster child failure for the GOP. The government's purpose is clear -- it is providing start up moneyin order to foster a new renewable energy industry in order to get off foreign oil and reduce carbon emissions. A 690 million cost (in defaults) to create 60,000 ongoing jobs is a good ROI at a one time cost of 11,500/employee. Even banks expect a higher default rate than 2%, and the government expected a default rate of close to 30% (10 billion).

Meanwhile, according to the bureau of labor, there are 135,000 oil and gas job in the USA and the oil industry (according to the DOE) gets 7 billion in tax breaks per year, or a cost of $50,000 / employee / year. The average oil and gas employee earns $19/hour or $38,000 a year, so in effect the government might as well just cut the check to the oil and gas employees and take away the tax incentives because it would be a fiscally better alternative.

Which is the better deal for Americans?

[edit]
By the way, my position is fairly clear. I don't have a problem with government intervening with industry in order to enhance the economy and I don't have a problem with the government attempting to increase productivity through a loan program.
[/edit]

Quote: boymimbo

The government is providing loans, which act as a subsidy if unpaid or defaulted, but it acts more as in investment. So far, on 34.4 billion in loan guarantees, the default rate is 2% on these loans, with Solyndra being the poster child failure for the GOP. The government's purpose is clear -- it is providing start up moneyin order to foster a new renewable energy industry in order to get off foreign oil and reduce carbon emissions. A 690 million cost (in defaults) to create 60,000 ongoing jobs is a good ROI at a one time cost of 11,500/employee. Even banks expect a higher default rate than 2%, and the government expected a default rate of close to 30% (10 billion).

I find a 2% default rate hard to believe. My guess is several bad loans have been restructured to make the rate appear low. Would not be the first time this happened.

Quote:

Meanwhile, according to the bureau of labor, there are 135,000 oil and gas job in the USA and the oil industry (according to the DOE) gets 7 billion in tax breaks per year, or a cost of $50,000 / employee / year. The average oil and gas employee earns $19/hour or $38,000 a year, so in effect the government might as well just cut the check to the oil and gas employees and take away the tax incentives because it would be a fiscally better alternative.

135,000 oil and gas employees? This doesn't pass the smell test. I have worked at an oil and gas office where we had 100+ people, and that was one small company. And there are plenty of this kind of small outfits all over the place. Methinks you are counting very narrowly as to what you call "oil and gas jobs." Perhaps just roughnecks and roustabouts? Sorry, oil and gas is far more than that.

Quote: AZDuffman

I find a 2% default rate hard to believe. My guess is several bad loans have been restructured to make the rate appear low. Would not be the first time this happened.

What... something that contradicts my narrative? CONSPIRACY!

Quote: 24Bingo

What... something that contradicts my narrative? CONSPIRACY!

Yeah! You probably helped cover up JFK as well!

The statistics I used was Department of Labor statistics, although, according to the USEIA, the actual employment for oil and gas is 90,000 in drilling, 153,000 in extraction, and 286,000 in support. That's a total of 529,000 jobs. The estimate for tax breaks for oil and gas is between 5 and 7 billion per year, so that's between about 9,800 - 13,000/year in tax breaks per year.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yeah! You probably helped cover up JFK as well!

Everything you know is wrong - Chumbawamba

Quote: boymimbo

The statistics I used was Department of Labor statistics, although, according to the USEIA, the actual employment for oil and gas is 90,000 in drilling, 153,000 in extraction, and 286,000 in support. That's a total of 529,000 jobs. The estimate for tax breaks for oil and gas is between 5 and 7 billion per year, so that's between about 9,800 - 13,000/year in tax breaks per year.

That looks a bit closer to reality. Here in PA most of our recent job growth is from natural gas extraction. The boom has stabilized a bit from 3 years ago, but it is still the driving force here. Nationwide to a great extent as well.

Quote: boymimbo

On 34.4 billion in loan guarantees, the default rate is 2% on these loans, with Solyndra being the poster child failure for the GOP. . . . A 690 million cost (in defaults) to create 60,000 ongoing jobs is a good ROI at a one time cost of 11,500/employee.

This is a list of just some of the recent government-financed failures:

Solar Trust of America: FAIL - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012 – On April 2, 2012

Bright Source: FAIL - Bright Source warned Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Lost Billions of dollars but Getting More Money To Keep Trying. Can you say, “This isnt working?”

Solyndra: FAIL - Gave Solyndra $500,000,000 in taxpayer money and Solyndra shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 After Billions in Losses due to failure to make a solar product that works!

LSP Energy: FAIL - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012

Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy

Abound Solar: FAIL - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy

SunPower: FAIL – SunPower stopped producing solar cells last year at near bankruptcy restructured only with help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL who owns 60% stake. Irony! Still

Beacon Power: FAIL – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy Oct 2011 just a year after Obama approved $43 million loan Government loan guarantee

Ecotality: FAIL - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees.

A123 Solar: FAIL-A123 received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’sDepartment of Energy loan guarantees and after Solyndra bankruptcy is getting another $500M and it has lost $400M

UniSolar: FAIL - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20 this year laid off hundreds got more money still failing but still in business

Azure Dynamics: FAIL - Azure Dynamics files for bankruptcy in June ter millions in “Stimulus”

Evergreen Solar: FAIL - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money and filed bankruptcy

Ener1: FAIL received more than $100 million in government funding and filed for bankruptcy January 2012

Update: In May 2012 Obama visited a dusty, desert town 30 miles outside Las Vegas Wednesday to declare he’s doubling down on failed federal efforts to boost the solar industry which has NEVER proven to produce a single working product.

Quote: thecesspit

Everything you know is wrong - Chumbawamba

I try to organize my ignorance of the government into different categories. Things that effect me directly and things that don't.

Show Don't Tell--RUSH

In your list, most of these companies actually never took government money.

Solar Trust of America: never took government money.
Bright Source: never took government money, still in business.
Solyndra: MASSIVE FAIL, appromimate actual cost 400 million.
LSP Energy: never took government money.
Energy Conversion Devices: never took government money, in operation for 50+ years, sold off its profitable divisions before declaring bankruptcy.
Abound Solar: Fail. Cost the government 68 million (according to recovery.gov)
SunPower: Did not cost the government
Beacon Power: Fail
Ecotality: Likely fail, 100 million dollars government loan.
A123 Solar: only received 132 million in funding, was repurchased, not in default.
UniSolar: no government funding
Azure Dynamics: Canadian company, no stimulus
Evergreen Solar: only received 21 million from state of Massechusetts, grew into large company before fail.
Ener1: its subsidiary received 64 million in funding and the subsidiary is still in operation.

So, 32.4 billion in public funding, about 700 million in failure, 98% success rate so far.

Of course, we could talk about Enron, the energy company, the grand poobah that brought about Sarbanes-Oxley. And I can provide an equal list of oil companies much bigger than these that declared bankruptcy.

Thank you and good night.

I like it when people argue on the facts. Good discussion.

At the same time, I see the GOP point of view which is the economic POV. Governments (local, state, federal) routines provide subsidies to the alternative market in order to stimulate the economy and that sector. This includes various government loan programs, subsidies, and bumping up the price they buy their electricity from the new energy. Much (the majority) of that 34 billion dollars is going into electric car production, not electric energy.

Many of us believe that treating new companies is unfair, especially when you see the Solyndra story and the fact that we believe we are paying more for hydro due to the subsidies/tax breaks/etc. And to some extent, we are (I say we because Ontario have plenty of wind energy which is subsidized).

That said, you have to bring in the balance the preexisting fact of the oil and gas industry's preferential tax treatment into the discussion if you really want to have a two-sided argument. If government is the problem, then government should get out of both funding alternative energy AND get rid of preferential tax breaks and let chips fall where they may.

If government is not the problem, then the argument should be over the merits of doing what it's doing, hopefully with a centred bipartisan POV. And from my perspective, if government is going to continue to allow $5 - $7 billion of tax benefits per year to continue to have oil and gas companies be here, they should also be allowed to guarantee loans for start-ups to support its energy policy.

And, believe it or not, the world's supply of oil and gas, despite advances in fracking technologies, is finite. Solar and Wind are not. In my view, it's worthwhile to support these industries in order to reduce the environmental effects of oil and gas extraction, reduce greenhouse emissions overall and to reduce overall demand for oil and gas. Included as part of the government's DOE loan program is up to 8 billion in loan guarantees (announced in July) for fracking technology in order to produce its oil and gas in a more environmentally sound fashion.

Quote: boymimbo

And, believe it or not, the world's supply of oil and gas, despite advances in fracking technologies, is finite. Solar and Wind are not. In my view, it's worthwhile to support these industries in order to reduce the environmental effects of oil and gas extraction, reduce greenhouse emissions overall and to reduce overall demand for oil and gas. Included as part of the government's DOE loan program is up to 8 billion in loan guarantees (announced in July) for fracking technology in order to produce its oil and gas in a more environmentally sound fashion.

I have three problems here. First, we do not know that it is finite. Lately it is looking that oil and gas might not have come from dinosaurs bur rather extreme pressure in the earth forcing the hydrogen and carbon into long chains that are the makeup of oil and gas. It may happen over 100s of years and not thousands. If this is the case then we may be able to "replant" wells just like we replant forests.

Second is the way we do wind and solar. Current solar cells work at best 50% of the time (please do not repost the sites with the mirrors heating the tower, I know all about it) and in reality less. If we can get Tesla's idea of moving electricity without wires maybe we can use satellites to beam it back to earth. Wind seems to have some siren-song of allure but always a few problems. It seems to be a good "helper" but will be hard to rely on.

Finally when we keep subsidizing wind and solar we miss out on other things. Tidal, geothermal, who knows what?

I would consider solar for my home but for the cost. The panels are not bad, but the hardware you need at your service box boy oh boy, it can kill the deal. Last I checked payback was almost 20 years. Get it to 5-10 and we can talk.

Quote: AZDuffman

I have three problems here. First, we do not know that it is finite. Lately it is looking that oil and gas might not have come from dinosaurs bur rather extreme pressure in the earth forcing the hydrogen and carbon into long chains that are the makeup of oil and gas. It may happen over 100s of years and not thousands. If this is the case then we may be able to "replant" wells just like we replant forests.

Anything might be true. We can't go on what might be true. Unless you've been transported back to the Soviet Union, I expect you've been reading too many creationist papers, and should probably look into what the scientists who command general respect say about them.

If oil and gas are indeed "replantable" that would be great but of course you would have to factor that into the cost of the well. But so far, there is absolutely no proof that what you are saying is true, and technology has not been developed yet. I might as well say that hydrogen fusion is the way of the future even though technically, it's never been done. And in the end, hundreds of years from now, it probably should be.

We know that solar and wind work when it's sunny / windy. There is also battery storage technology available to store power (short term) until it is needed. Mass technology, like in the model T and the computer, will make things cheaper over time, but there will always be the need for 24/7 production by fossils (or nuclear).

Quote: 24Bingo

Anything might be true. We can't go on what might be true. Unless you've been transported back to the Soviet Union, I expect you've been reading too many creationist papers, and should probably look into what the scientists who command general respect say about them.

Not sure what the hater comment about creationism has to do with anything but it is from respected sources. And a bit of logic.

1. There is good reason to wonder how all the dead dinosaurs ended up a mile or more below the earth's surface intact enough to leave their carbon behind.

2. There are plenty of old fields that should have dried up but keep going, geologists do wonder if they are getting seepage from below.

3. The relative weight alone can cause question if oil came from living things. One barrel of oil weighs a bit over 200 lbs. Giving weight of dinosaurs means little, so lets imagine people. Every man, woman, and child in the world together would weigh about 1.3 trillion pounds. With world reserves of around a trillion, that meals all the oil weighs 200 trillion pounds.

So, we would need to factor the population of the earth by 200 to get the weight of all the oil. BUT most of the weight of living things is water, well over 50%. You will need far more living things, and they would have been concentrated in the few places oil is found in quantity.

So, do you want to keep making hater comments or do you want to be intellectually curious and think oil might be produced in ways other than conventional wisdom?

Since oil is thought to come from algae and plankton, not dinosaurs, throwing two of your points right out the window, I find your "curiosity" rather lacking: you "ask questions" looking for an answer you've already settled on. Moreover, you're not going to pique my curiosity with unsubstantiated claims accompanied by empty iconoclasm, especially a claim so familiar (and so many times debunked) as Communist propaganda and a creationist mantra, your elevation of the latter knocking the wind right out of your already-weak appeal to unspecified "respected sources." "Conventional wisdom," in this case, is the convention for a reason.

(Incidentally, who cares about humans? Add it all up, and all living things come to well over a quadrillion pounds, and that's one snapshot moment in billions of years.)

Faith in oil. Interesting.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not sure what the hater comment about creationism has to do with anything

Bingo dislikes religion. He made an offensive "Jebus" comment a while back and got called out by another member for it.

Quote: boymimbo

Faith in oil. Interesting.

Now explain, minus the hate talk, how living things on the surface end up a mile or more underground.

boymimbo can probably explain this better than I am, but the short answer (which you consider hate speech, I know) is "most crude oil comes from oceanic anoxic events, and the most recent of these was tens of millions of years of sedimentation and tectonic shift ago."

Quote: boymimbo

In your list, most of these companies actually never took government money. . . . So, 32.4 billion in public funding, about 700 million in failure, 98% success rate so far.

There seems to be a $50 billion discrepancy between your figure and the publicly available numbers, as well as whether companies received the taxpayer money or not. The "HF" in this updated and more complete list refers to the reputable Heritage Foundation:

"Here is the list of Bankruptcies and troubled companies to date (2012). And all money included for ‘investing’ in green energy ‘programs’, that price tag comes to over double his figure, $80 billion:

BANKRUPT
1.Solyndra*: Received $535 million DOE loan and $25.1 million in California tax credit. Bankrupt: September 2011
2.Abound Solar*: Received part of a $60 million grant under the Bush administration, and was awarded a $400 million loan under Obama in December of 2010. Abound was awarded a $9.2-million loan from the Export-Import Bank in July 2011. Bankrupt: June 2012
3.Beacon Power*: Received more than $25 million in DOE grants and a DOE loan for $43 million. Bankrupt: October 2011
4.A123 Systems*: Received $390 million, of which $249 million of it was a Recovery Act Grant. Filed for Bankruptcy October 16, 2012, and two companies are seeking to buy A123; Johnson Controls and the Chinese firm Wanxiang Group Corp.
5.Amonix*: Received $6 million in federal tax credits a $15.6 million grant from the DOE for research and development. Bankrupt: July 18, 2012.
6.Azure Dynamics*: Received millions in stimulus funds and over $1.7 million in Michigan state tax credits. Bankrupt: March 27, 2012 –– HF ADDITION: states $120 million
7.Babcock & Brown: Received $178 million in the largest federal (1603) stimulus wind grant in December 2009. Placed into voluntary liquidation: March 13, 2009
8.Energy Conversion Devices Inc./Uni-Solar: Received a $13.3 million Stimulus tax credit. Bankrupt: February 2011.
9.Ener1*: Received a $118.5 million DOE Stimulus grant. Bankrupt: January 26, 2011.
10.Evergreen Solar, Inc.*: Received Stimulus funds, grants, tax-credits, low-interest loans and subsidies. Bankrupt: August 15, 2011
11.Konarka Technologies Inc.: Received $20 million in grants from government agencies such as the DOE and the Pentagon. Bankrupt: June 4, 2012.
12.ADDITION Range Fuels*: Range Fuels: $162.25 million in government commitments since 2007, of which $64 million came from a USDA Biofuel loan in 2010 alone, despite financial and technical difficulties, and opposition inside the USDA.
13.Raser Technologies: Received $33 million Treasury Department Stimulus grant. Bankrupt: May 2, 2011.
14.SpectraWatt*: Received $500,000 grant from the Renewable Energy Lab via the Stimulus. Bankrupt: August 23, 2011
15.Stirling Energy Systems: Received $7 million from a federal renewable-energy grant and was eligible for nearly $10.5 million in manufacturing September 28, 2011.
16.Thompson River Power LLC: Received $6.5 million in Stimulus funds from Section 1603. Bankrupt: July 2, 2012.
17.HF ADDITION: Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million); in our unconfirmed list
18.HF ADDITION: Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million); in our unconfirmed list
19.HF ADDITION: Nordic Windpower* ($16 million)
20.HF ADDITION: Satcon ($3 million) As reported by the Heritage Foundation October 18, 2012, “A solar company that got a multi-million-dollar grant from the Department of Energy earlier this year announced Wednesday that it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, making it the second taxpayer-backed green energy company to file for bankruptcy this week.”
21.HF ADDITION: Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981) ($6 million); in our unconfirmed bankrupt list
22.ADDITION, October 23, 2012: Cardinal Fastener & Specialty Co.: Received $480,000 through the Section 48C Advanced Manufacturing Tax Credit Program. During Obama’s visit to Cardinal Fastener, he took a “green Recovery Act victory lap,” and touted it as means for “Made-In-America Jobs” for Ohio. Yet, just two weeks after the Obama visit, Cardinal laid off 12 percent of its staff, and in June 2011, Cardinal Fastener filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Lastly, in January 2012, Cardinal Fastener was acquired by Germany’s Wurth Group for just $3.9 Million.
23.HF ADDITION, December 1, 2012: ReVolt Technology is a Portland-based company, which specialized in developing zinc-air flow battery systems. “ReVolt earned its place in the Graveyard when it declared bankruptcy (October 17, 2012), despite the fact it had been offered a whopping $10 million in funds from federal, state, and local governments. The Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy offered a $5 million grant in 2010. Oregon matched the federal government’s promise with $5 million worth of loans.”

Twenty-nine "troubled" businesses follow.

Quote: SanchoPanza

The "HF" in this updated and more complete list refers to the reputable Heritage Foundation

You realize that the HF that you mention is now run by Jim DeMint who is widely regarded as only slightly more intelligent than a tomato or perhaps Louie Gohmert. That pretty much makes the Heritage Foundation a laughing stock which is a shame. They are the group that came up with the original idea for Obamacare.

Quote: SanchoPanza

...the reputable Heritage Foundation...

Almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that one.

Quote: s2dbaker

Only slightly more intelligent than a tomato or perhaps Louie Gohmert. That pretty much makes the Heritage Foundation a laughing stock which is a shame.

At least they get their numbers from real sources like the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the D.O.E.'s LPO, which is far more than can be said for the unsourced response posted here.

No, my sources are pretty much the same as yours. I just don't have THAT political agenda to push. I get that some government loans never get repaid. The government also lends plenty of money to small businesses and students of which there is a default rate. We could appeal to the government to stop student and business loans too, and I would expect a libertarian to expect just that.

However, there are plenty of solar and wind companies that are doing just fine. And given that the default rate (according to the DOE) is at 2% (about 700 million of DOE loans) on 34.4 billion of Federal DOE loans, i'm inclined to believe that the investments so far is doing just fine.

The expanded list of bankrupt companies does not add up to anything close to the funding amounts of $50 billion. Perhaps there is a comprehension problem here.

What we can also say that the breaks in taxes given to oil and gas are designed to stimulate drilling and expansion. It allows you to deduct capital projects early, which allow companies to keep more money earlier in its expansion process since it can effectively write off all start-up costs BEFORE any revenue is made.

And we've debated whether a loan is the same as a tax break. It isn't, but the goal is the same: to encourage expansion of an industry. I fully expect that 50 years down the road, when solar / wind / hydrogen / whatever alternative energy is fully up and running for the government to be providing tax breaks (just like to big oil) instead of loans.

And yes, I'm going to to completely trust a REPUTABLE site whose headline boasts: "Collusion: How the Media stole the 2012 election and how to stop them from doing it in 2016."

Quote: boymimbo

No, my sources are pretty much the same as yours. I just don't have THAT political agenda to push.

Be upfront. It is not as if you do not have a "political agenda to push." If your sources "are pretty much the same," then there should not be differences of hundreds of millions of dollars in the sums given. It is notable that the still unsourced $700 million figure in the next paragraph is eclipsed in just the first two entries. And the omission of the 29 troubled companies just goes to compound the attitude of "Nothing to see here--move on."

Quote: boymimbo

And yes, I'm going to to completely trust a REPUTABLE site whose headline boasts: "Collusion: How the Media stole the 2012 election and how to stop them from doing it in 2016."

Lets see, same media that blatantly made up a story on Bush back in 2004?

Same media that buried the Rev Right racist church story?

Same media that went to Romney's prep school days but ignored anything from Obama's past?

You would have to be both blind and in denial to not see that.

Quote: SanchoPanza

...the reputable Heritage Foundation...

Nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I read that one.

My sources are government sources, not mainstream media. In each case, I went to the Department of Energy's loan sites and saw how much funding each company received from the government. I did not go to ANY news site to get my sources, neither left nor right. I hardly ever do, because the amount of bias on both sides of the aisle are incredulous at best and complete bull shit at the worse. Heritage, for me, lands in the complete bullshit category, with a very clear and conservative agenda.

Why? Because my point is not that solar energy companies are great or that oil and gas companies are evil. I'm pointing at the true percentage of loan defaults given by the DOE to renewable energies, under the 1703, 1705 and ATVM. 34.4 billion in loans and $700 million or so in default which by my math is 2%. To me, a 2% default rate on loans is better than what credit cards or mortgage companies get. The government budgeted a 30% default rate, accepting a 10 billion dollar loss on the loan guarantees.

Instead I get a list of all renewable companies that went bankrupt from a very right leaning website, some of which received no or very little in government loan funding. Initial numbers quoted by Sancho included the value of the company when it went bankrupt, not the amount of funding received. I COULD post a link to here that would, in my opinion, be equally biased in the other direction: equal bullshit, opposite point of view, with a very clear and liberal agenda.

So, while Sancho delivered a list of bankrupt companies, big whoop. I could publish an equal incredulous list of energy companies (starting with Enron, next Texaco) that also went bankrupt who were receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks.

But that's not the point.

Quote: boymimbo

My sources are government sources, not mainstream media.

So you trust the government, being run by a political class that we keep electing in spite of their inability to lead/run the country (goes for both sides, folks), to tell you the truth about the numbers?

I think I'd take their numbers and look for evidence of "adjustments" that make things look better for the administration...

We already KNOW that the books are cooked on unemployment--you have to work at it to really find out how many people are unemployed/underemployed since they just stop counting after a period of time. I've always thought that was nutso...

Quote: SanchoPanza

7.Babcock & Brown: Received $178 million in the largest federal (1603) stimulus wind grant in December 2009. Placed into voluntary liquidation: March 13, 2009].

Let's see. According to treasury.gov, The x1603 program offers renewable energy project developers cash payments in lieu of the investment tax credits (ITC). The value of the awards are equivalent to 30% of the project's total eligible cost basis in most cases. Total 1603 funding was 18.2 billion producing 21.7 gigawatts of power.

9,222 companies (to data) were provided total funding of $19,349,675,402 dollars. This is not a loan, it's a replacement of a tax credit, a cash payment given in advance in lieu of claiming the ITC later.

The funding of $178,004,264 was given to Pattern Energy, not Babcock and Brown. According to Riverstone LLC, Pattern Energy was created in June 2009. Riverstone acquired the Babcock and Brown assets then, and the funding, according to treasury.gov, went to them. My sources are treasury.gov and a press release completed by the company to completed the transaction. Pattern Energy is still in business and in fact, they are going public.

I don't have time to refute every story, but when one story is COMPLETELY wrong, I tend to discount the rest.


Quote: RonC

So you trust the government, being run by a political class that we keep electing in spite of their inability to lead/run the country (goes for both sides, folks), to tell you the truth about the numbers?

I think I'd take their numbers and look for evidence of "adjustments" that make things look better for the administration...

We already KNOW that the books are cooked on unemployment--you have to work at it to really find out how many people are unemployed/underemployed since they just stop counting after a period of time. I've always thought that was nutso...

No, I trust a conservative website whose intent is on obviously slandering the left on every chance they get! Duh!

Quote: RonC

So you trust the government, being run by a political class that we keep electing in spite of their inability to lead/run the country (goes for both sides, folks), to tell you the truth about the numbers?

I think I'd take their numbers and look for evidence of "adjustments" that make things look better for the administration...

However, you don't have access to that level of information, and while it may not be best source, it's probably the best source available. Over sources are probably guesses, or biased estimates. Official Bureau's of Statistics tend to be pretty accurate -given the terms of data collection-. If the source says 6 million unemployed, it's probably close to 6 million unemployed. You just have to find out what 'unemployed' means, and if that definition is broke, look at other numbers, like the number of people of working age who are not receiving a wage. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has all sorts of break downs on that... numbers that aren't reported as headline rates.

Quote: boymimbo

No, I trust a conservative website whose intent is on obviously slandering the left on every chance they get! Duh!

So you trust the government to tell the truth and don't bother at least listening to anyone who says that they may be cooking the books a bit to make themselves look better?

I said nothing about trusting a conservative website--my point is that we shouldn't blindly accept this government's numbers...no matter who is in charge at this point, our government consists of a political class that wants to stay in power at any cost (again, both sides). We should be at least a little suspicious of the government. They've earned it!!

Duh.

Quote: RonC

We already KNOW that the books are cooked on unemployment--you have to work at it to really find out how many people are unemployed/underemployed since they just stop counting after a period of time. I've always thought that was nutso...

I am not accusing the current administration of cooking the unemployment numbers. There has been a little talk of some of that in adjustments at some points, but nothing substantial (that has been proven in any way). The issue with this administration and unemployment is the huge number of part time jobs that are filled by people who would rather be working full time.

The formula misses the mark overall because it drops people who are discouraged from looking for jobs from the roles. That one is consistent...they've done that for quite a while.

As to the global warming stuff, I think we need a coherent policy that encourages both oil production and alternatives. Tax incentives that encourage investment in either are fine with me, unless we change the tax system completely (which I am in favor of doing). I just don't want to hand folks a bunch of money that goes down the toilet.

But at the end of the day, I very rarely know the government to directly lie on matters like these, rather than obfuscate, or at least not without those with the correct data making a direct attack on the official claim. If I see one set of numbers from the government, and a different set of numbers from any other source, and these numbers are too "raw" to have been somehow calculated differently, and this alternate source does not make a direct accusation of government wrongdoing and is not extremely close to the data itself, in that case I'm inclined to believe the government. All those conditions apply in this case.

I rarely question the government. I'll go after politicians in a heartbeat. I'm always questioned their true motives, but the body that is the government has my trust.

I would like to note that a Shell Gas Station where I live had gas at 3.66 yesterday. Today it was 3.91. The Valero station still have gas for 3.63.

Don't get me start on dinosaurs. I've proven they were dead and buried before any asteroid impact. As for what killed them, the best answer I have is bird flu.


Edit: While I'm at it I would also like to note the Big Bang Theory is wrong. It has to do with stars exploding. They explode in 2 ways. Stars at or above 1.4 solar masses explode into supernova and release all the elements and the heavier ones to, like carbon. When smaller stars explode they create a nebula. Because of the "tiny" or small size, all the H and He blow off and what remains is a ball of carbon. Smaller stars do not blow off their carbon. Since the Big Bang Theory states that the Universe was created from a tiny point of mass, smaller than 1.4 solar masses, the Universe could not have come from this. If it had, at the center would be a mass of carbon smaller than our Sun.

Next we have the time it takes for enough carbon to be created and time to condense into planets.
The Universe would have to be 21 million years old in order for enough carbon to fuse together to create Earth.
Even it you calculate that 2% of all carbon was created instantly, there just hasn't been enough time.
The elements from larger stars is where the material came from to create our planet. Not from a tiny spot that came out of nowhere. The reason the Theory is widely excepted has to do with the Church. You can see this in the newest idea, "Boson God Particle". If you recall, this particle is said to hold mass, (together), and created atom. It was also voted on to be the ways things are.

All right everyone, you've been great! Good night!

Quote: RonC

I am not accusing the current administration of cooking the unemployment numbers. There has been a little talk of some of that in adjustments at some points, but nothing substantial (that has been proven in any way). The issue with this administration and unemployment is the huge number of part time jobs that are filled by people who would rather be working full time.

The formula misses the mark overall because it drops people who are discouraged from looking for jobs from the roles. That one is consistent...they've done that for quite a while.

As to the global warming stuff, I think we need a coherent policy that encourages both oil production and alternatives. Tax incentives that encourage investment in either are fine with me, unless we change the tax system completely (which I am in favor of doing). I just don't want to hand folks a bunch of money that goes down the toilet.

The government numbers quoted by treasury and DOE are usually subject to independent audit and I am fine with those numbers. You can usually collaberate those numbers with company announcements. I don't trust a government "announcement" and certainly don't trust what politicians (on both sides) state at debates.

I don't want to tell the right wing media on how to write their stories, but they'd come across as a heck of alot more credible without the flat out attacks. The right isn't stupid... they can read between the lines just as well as the left can. When I read a story about an energy company failing with the accusation that Obama is trying to hide something, all the facts come into question, because there is clearly editorializing going on in the article, because the writer doesn't know the intention of Obama as a person. As FoxNews states (but hardly does), "We report the facts. You decide".