If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RedState)   Taxes, lies and the energy sector. Who is benefiting the most and returning the worst   (redstate.com) divider line 54
    More: Obvious, energy industry, obama, incentive payments, energy usage, itemized deduction, Institute for Energy Research, energy development, corporate income tax  
•       •       •

3075 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 Oct 2012 at 1:06 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-08 10:13:26 AM  
Yes, let's not fund the emerging green energy technology. We can just cede that to China, I'm sure that won't have any repercussions in the US job market.

I know you business experts can't think beyond next quarter, but some things take a while to get going. Imagine if we hadn't wasted all that money building the internet, which I believe didn't pay a whole lot of returns for a number of years.
 
2012-10-08 10:19:46 AM  
Using a 10-year budget frame, we are expected to spend another $46 trillion. Democrats claim that their plan to cut the oil tax deductions would save us $21 billion over 10 years. That amounts to .00045% of our estimated outlays.

1) It's .045%, not .00045%
2) It's 5 times more than what will be spent on PBS
 
2012-10-08 10:39:26 AM  
In the process he insulted the intelligence of every voter by intimating that the budget can be balanced by eliminating a few tax credits.

No he didn't. In an article titled, "Obama's Tax Deduction Lie", it's probably not advisable to start your own prevarication in the third damned sentence.
 
2012-10-08 11:28:40 AM  
Make another sucky blog 'cause people they want more of this

Suckers they be saying they can take out Daniel Horowitz
 
2012-10-08 11:41:49 AM  
In the meantime, let's take a break from ranting about how we shouldn't fund green technology to rant about how China is getting far ahead of us in green technology because they actually subsidize it but pretend it's all the fault of liberals instead.
 
2012-10-08 12:27:35 PM  

GAT_00: In the meantime, let's take a break from ranting about how we shouldn't fund green technology to rant about how China is getting far ahead of us in green technology because they actually subsidize it but pretend it's all the fault of liberals instead.


Well, yeah, too many regulations. That's what is holding back investing in green energy, it certainly isn't Republicans crying every time the government invests in green energy. Because everyone knows there is nothing the private sector loves more than long term uncertain investments, with no guaranteed payout at the end.
 
2012-10-08 12:31:06 PM  
Yes, if there is no immediate payoff to people who already have too much money, then it's not worth investing in.
 
2012-10-08 12:55:32 PM  

GAT_00: In the meantime, let's take a break from ranting about how we shouldn't fund green technology to rant about how China is getting far ahead of us in green technology because they actually subsidize it but pretend it's all the fault of liberals instead.


I just heard on NPR about Chinese solar energy companies going bankrupt and the Chinese government having to bail them out. Its like Solyndra times 10 over there.
 
2012-10-08 01:04:39 PM  

cretinbob: Yes, if there is no immediate payoff to people who already have too much money, then it's not worth investing in.


But enough about GM.
 
2012-10-08 01:30:36 PM  
Linking to Redstate makes baby Jesus cry and want to ride his dinosaur.
 
2012-10-08 01:30:45 PM  
There's a lot of lies in that article, but the one I love is this . . .

"Mitt Romney rightfully lambasted Obama for overlooking the $90 billion in subsidies for green energy while focusing on a few billion in deductions he feels he could demagogue . . . As you can see, Solar is being subsidized by over 1200 times more than fossil fuels, while Wind enjoys over 80 times more in taxpayer cash. The reality is that no amount of subsidy can compensate for the impotence of green energy."
www.redstate.com

So, they're taking Romney's comment on federal investment in renewable energy over the past 3 years, and then comparing that cost to the output of renewables in 2009.

That's analogous to comparing how expensive it is to buy a new car, driving and paying for it for three years, and then showing an old graph from the day you bought it that says you've only driven in 5 miles home and spent $20,000. "That car costs $4,000 a mile to drive!"

Then comparing it to a paid off car that you've had for 100-years, drove 2 million miles, and paid off 50-years ago. "This car costs one penny to drive 100 miles!!!"
 
2012-10-08 01:37:52 PM  
Red State certainly does know a lot about taxes and lies.
 
2012-10-08 01:45:36 PM  

MrSteve007: Graphs


Did they really honestly use the cost per unit generated?
Cause it seems like that's sort of a bullshiat argument to use against an emerging market.
 
2012-10-08 01:52:56 PM  

JokerMattly: MrSteve007: Graphs

Did they really honestly use the cost per unit generated?
Cause it seems like that's sort of a bullshiat argument to use against an emerging market.


Oh, Red State didn't. They cite those numbers are from the Institute for Energy Research which is run by the former director of policy analysis at Enron and gets a large amount of funding from the Koch Brothers.

I'm sure they came about those numbers in a totally legit fashion.
 
2012-10-08 02:25:53 PM  
Dnrtfa, but let me guess, they completely forget to price externalities into their equation?
 
2012-10-08 02:32:09 PM  
Uh yeah. I've spent my whole professional career in the oil industry and we can easily pay more. Can we put this garbage in the politics tab please? It's actually smart. Not smart in the way that it presents facts in a logical way, but in the unique way that they had to phrase almost every statement to be even somewhat true without revealing the numbers that actually matter.
 
2012-10-08 02:34:02 PM  

vernonFL: I just heard on NPR about Chinese solar energy companies going bankrupt and the Chinese government having to bail them out. Its like Solyndra times 10 over there.


what? i was told mass production of expensive inefficient energy alternatives was highly profitable! just look at ethanol!

/more money for research for real alternatives, not mass production of expensive half measures.
 
2012-10-08 02:35:33 PM  
Did you know that GM took a fifty billion dollar loss on the first Volt they produced?
 
2012-10-08 02:52:30 PM  
Am I the only one who looks at wind energy as a way to reduce farm subsidies? Look at it this way... farming is an import industry in any country that wants to be independent. If you can't grow enough food then you are dependent on a foreign country for survival. So farming is critical. Farming is also volatile since it is heavily dependent on the weather. A second revenue stream for farmers would level out the revenue peaks and valleys inherent in farming.

What do farmers have that they can use for a second revenue stream? They have gobs of land. A wind generator has a small foot print so takes a minimal amount land away from food production yet can help the farmer create a second income from his biggest asset. With a second revenue stream the farmer is less likely to go bankrupt during draughts or other cataclysmic weather event. Since the farmer will still have revenue from the wind generator even in times of draught, he will be less dependent on government handouts. With development of wind farms, the US can reduce farm subsidies.
 
2012-10-08 02:54:44 PM  

MrSteve007: There's a lot of lies in that article, but the one I love is this . . .

"Mitt Romney rightfully lambasted Obama for overlooking the $90 billion in subsidies for green energy while focusing on a few billion in deductions he feels he could demagogue . . . As you can see, Solar is being subsidized by over 1200 times more than fossil fuels, while Wind enjoys over 80 times more in taxpayer cash. The reality is that no amount of subsidy can compensate for the impotence of green energy."
[www.redstate.com image 469x305]

So, they're taking Romney's comment on federal investment in renewable energy over the past 3 years, and then comparing that cost to the output of renewables in 2009.

That's analogous to comparing how expensive it is to buy a new car, driving and paying for it for three years, and then showing an old graph from the day you bought it that says you've only driven in 5 miles home and spent $20,000. "That car costs $4,000 a mile to drive!"

Then comparing it to a paid off car that you've had for 100-years, drove 2 million miles, and paid off 50-years ago. "This car costs one penny to drive 100 miles!!!"


I do not claim to be an expert on these charts, and I just did not understand what the author was going for in this statement. Now that I have your explanation, I feel I understand how the author had little understanding of this graph. Thus unable to convince me of what he was trying to say.
 
2012-10-08 03:10:53 PM  

vernonFL: Make another sucky blog 'cause people they want more of this

Suckers they be saying they can take out Daniel Horowitz


I read that in the voice of Ad-Rock.
 
2012-10-08 03:28:11 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Dnrtfa, but let me guess, they completely forget to price externalities into their equation?


Externalities don't exist. It's the INVISIBLE HAND.

As an aside, I see the INVISIBLE HAND as some kind of Randian Ubermensch super-hero. His powers are the ability to greatly benefit from positive externalities like roads, the Internet, and the police, but never has to suffer due to negative externalities- he can shiat where ever he wants.
 
2012-10-08 04:22:52 PM  
Obama thinks the American people are stupid.

Stopped reading because frankly American politics is toxic and brutally unpleasant to be around. Please sober up some day America.
 
2012-10-08 04:30:42 PM  
It's almost like people don't want to invest in solar when the economy is in the shiatter.
 
2012-10-08 04:31:39 PM  
I don't know how to pound this through idiots skulls...

A tax break for buying a corporate jet is a subsidy for the corporate jet industry, not the oil industry.

The tax deduction encourages people to buy jets, and the jet companies therefore make more money. Since the cost of the jet can be partially or fully written off, they'll do less negotiating on price, leading to higher margins for the jet industry.
 
2012-10-08 04:36:51 PM  

vernonFL: Make another sucky blog 'cause people they want more of this

Suckers they be saying they can take out Daniel Horowitz


Hurricane?
 
2012-10-08 05:18:08 PM  

GAT_00: In the meantime, let's take a break from ranting about how we shouldn't fund green technology to rant about how China is getting far ahead of us in green technology because they actually subsidize it but pretend it's all the fault of liberals instead.


Actually subsidize it? Did you miss where we're paying out -200%? If I give you double your cost, and then let you sell on top of that, how is that not subsidized?
 
2012-10-08 05:35:40 PM  

impaler: Using a 10-year budget frame, we are expected to spend another $46 trillion. Democrats claim that their plan to cut the oil tax deductions would save us $21 billion over 10 years. That amounts to .00045% of our estimated outlays.

1) It's .045%, not .00045%
2) It's 5 times more than what will be spent on PBS


Came here to point this out.

It's also a lot more than given to Planned Parenthood, as well, which the GOP has been "obsessing" about since...well, since ever.
 
2012-10-08 05:38:04 PM  
Let the japanese make their fuel efficient vehicles, they'll never stomp out the US car industry.

Oh, we're having the modern version of that conversation... good to see we didn't learn a damned thing so we can just do this mad-libs style.
 
2012-10-08 05:42:23 PM  
No, he didn't commit to tackling the tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities to Medicare and Social Security.

I stopped right there.
 
2012-10-08 05:45:49 PM  
Muta
2012-10-08 02:52:30 PM
Am I the only one who looks at wind energy as a way to reduce farm subsidies? Look at it this way... farming is an import industry in any country that wants to be independent. If you can't grow enough food then you are dependent on a foreign country for survival. So farming is critical. Farming is also volatile since it is heavily dependent on the weather. A second revenue stream for farmers would level out the revenue peaks and valleys inherent in farming.

What do farmers have that they can use for a second revenue stream? They have gobs of land. A wind generator has a small foot print so takes a minimal amount land away from food production yet can help the farmer create a second income from his biggest asset. With a second revenue stream the farmer is less likely to go bankrupt during draughts or other cataclysmic weather event. Since the farmer will still have revenue from the wind generator even in times of draught, he will be less dependent on government handouts. With development of wind farms, the US can reduce farm subsidies.


Haven't you learned yet that reasoned analysis of expected side effects has no place on Fark?

Besides, the self styled conservatives are [theoretically] against subsidies and the self styled liberals don't want to tell their supporters that the biggest landowner beneficiaries are Oklahoma and West Texas ranchers who won't vote Democratic anyway.  Neither one wants to drift far from their simplistic talking points.
 
2012-10-08 06:00:04 PM  
FTA: "Obama thinks the American people are stupid."

Obama would be correct.
 
2012-10-08 06:01:16 PM  

EvilEgg: Yes, let's not fund the emerging green energy technology. We can just cede that to China, I'm sure that won't have any repercussions in the US job market.

I know you business experts can't think beyond next quarter, but some things take a while to get going. Imagine if we hadn't wasted all that money building the internet, which I believe didn't pay a whole lot of returns for a number of years.


There's a big difference. The internet held the promise of cheaper communication. Green energy holds the promise of more expensive energy.
 
2012-10-08 06:23:42 PM  

Bullseyed: I don't know how to pound this through idiots skulls... A tax break for buying a corporate jet is a subsidy for the corporate jet industry, not the oil industry. The tax deduction encourages people to buy jets, and the jet companies therefore make more money. Since the cost of the jet can be partially or fully written off, they'll do less negotiating on price, leading to higher margins for the jet industry.


And now Mr, Corporate Jet Owner will burn 1200 gallons of fuel per hour for his 4 passengers for the same trip that he could have taken with 200 people burning 3200 gallons per hour.
 
2012-10-08 06:27:40 PM  

t3knomanser: Lost Thought 00: Dnrtfa, but let me guess, they completely forget to price externalities into their equation?

Externalities don't exist. It's the INVISIBLE HAND.

As an aside, I see the INVISIBLE HAND as some kind of Randian Ubermensch super-hero. His powers are the ability to greatly benefit from positive externalities like roads, the Internet, and the police, but never has to suffer due to negative externalities- he can shiat where ever he wants.


images2.dailykos.com

Hey! You're stealing my bit! That's copyright infringement!
 
2012-10-08 06:29:35 PM  

DrPainMD: EvilEgg:

There's a big difference. The internet held the promise of cheaper communication. Green energy holds the promise of more expensive energy.


Did you factor in health, environmental and security costs?
Do you think renewable energy won't be cheaper in the future with innovation and economies of scale?

(Don't forget to start saving enough money to pay for dykes around your coastal cities)
 
2012-10-08 06:36:55 PM  

DrPainMD: Green energy holds the promise of more expensive energy.


Actually cheaper energy.
 
2012-10-08 06:39:32 PM  

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: Do you think renewable energy won't be cheaper in the future with innovation and economies of scale?


Actually it's not even that, its' that you don't pay anything for fuel costs. You build whatever you're using and all you have are some maintenance costs, which in some cases aren't much at all as there's not much to maintain.
 
2012-10-08 06:45:02 PM  

EvilEgg
2012-10-08 10:13:26 AM
Yes, let's not fund the emerging green energy technology. We can just cede that to China, I'm sure that won't have any repercussions in the US job market.

I know you business experts can't think beyond next quarter, but some things take a while to get going. Imagine if we hadn't wasted all that money building the internet POWER GRID, which I believe didn't pay a whole lot of returns for a number of years

I believe it was rural electrification that really put electricity on the map.
Commies!
 
2012-10-08 07:22:18 PM  

Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: DrPainMD: EvilEgg:

There's a big difference. The internet held the promise of cheaper communication. Green energy holds the promise of more expensive energy.

Did you factor in health, environmental and security costs?
Do you think renewable energy won't be cheaper in the future with innovation and economies of scale?

(Don't forget to start saving enough money to pay for dykes around your coastal cities)



Dikes would probably be more practical for what you're suggesting.
 
2012-10-08 07:33:37 PM  

DrPainMD: Green energy holds the promise of more expensive energy.


Someone doesn't understand supply and demand, I see.
 
2012-10-08 07:46:27 PM  

phlegmmo: Stranded On The Planet Dumbass: DrPainMD: EvilEgg:

There's a big difference. The internet held the promise of cheaper communication. Green energy holds the promise of more expensive energy.

Did you factor in health, environmental and security costs?
Do you think renewable energy won't be cheaper in the future with innovation and economies of scale?

(Don't forget to start saving enough money to pay for dykes around your coastal cities)


Dikes would probably be more practical for what you're suggesting.


calm, elegant, understated... the best laugh I've had all day.

Thanks!
 
2012-10-08 08:14:53 PM  

DrPainMD: EvilEgg: Yes, let's not fund the emerging green energy technology. We can just cede that to China, I'm sure that won't have any repercussions in the US job market.

I know you business experts can't think beyond next quarter, but some things take a while to get going. Imagine if we hadn't wasted all that money building the internet, which I believe didn't pay a whole lot of returns for a number of years.

There's a big difference. The internet held the promise of cheaper communication. Green energy holds the promise of more expensive energy.


Yes, because the price of energy does not drop with increases in technology. That is why only the largest cities can afford coal power plants to power electricity and we will never get it into rural environments.

Same with cars. Do you believe those silly people who think anyone but the rich will ever afford one of those new fangled automobiles.

Then you have all that stupid expensive computers. You need a whole building just to hold one. Sure they have uses aboard a battleship to calculate trajectories, but what weirdo would need one elsewhere? They cost millions of dollars after all.

And it continues with several million other inventions. I wouldn't be surprised if their ancestors were the one that biatched "why would you use a wheel to move something when you can use a few thousand slaves."
 
2012-10-08 08:22:40 PM  

limeyfellow: And it continues with several million other inventions. I wouldn't be surprised if their ancestors were the one that biatched "why would you use a wheel to move something when you can use a few thousand slaves."


Why would anyone need written language? If it wasn't important enough to remember, it wasn't important.
 
2012-10-08 08:24:57 PM  

Muta: Am I the only one who looks at wind energy as a way to reduce farm subsidies? Look at it this way... farming is an import industry in any country that wants to be independent. If you can't grow enough food then you are dependent on a foreign country for survival. So farming is critical. Farming is also volatile since it is heavily dependent on the weather. A second revenue stream for farmers would level out the revenue peaks and valleys inherent in farming.

What do farmers have that they can use for a second revenue stream? They have gobs of land. A wind generator has a small foot print so takes a minimal amount land away from food production yet can help the farmer create a second income from his biggest asset. With a second revenue stream the farmer is less likely to go bankrupt during draughts or other cataclysmic weather event. Since the farmer will still have revenue from the wind generator even in times of draught, he will be less dependent on government handouts. With development of wind farms, the US can reduce farm subsidies.


Plus I'm sure all those fans will keep the cows cool!
 
2012-10-08 08:30:15 PM  
I'm going to invest in the burgeoning bullshiat detector market.

/Every time stuff like this happens, through a combination of collective irrational exuberance, personal mania amd straight-up con-artistry, it makes your whole sector look bad. Police yourselves.
 
2012-10-08 10:58:13 PM  

Muta: Am I the only one who looks at wind energy as a way to reduce farm subsidies? Look at it this way... farming is an import industry in any country that wants to be independent. If you can't grow enough food then you are dependent on a foreign country for survival. So farming is critical. Farming is also volatile since it is heavily dependent on the weather. A second revenue stream for farmers would level out the revenue peaks and valleys inherent in farming.

What do farmers have that they can use for a second revenue stream? They have gobs of land. A wind generator has a small foot print so takes a minimal amount land away from food production yet can help the farmer create a second income from his biggest asset. With a second revenue stream the farmer is less likely to go bankrupt during draughts or other cataclysmic weather event. Since the farmer will still have revenue from the wind generator even in times of draught, he will be less dependent on government handouts. With development of wind farms, the US can reduce farm subsidies.


Farm subsidies aren't about keeping farmers afloat during bad times. They are about keeping some foods very cheap, and some foods expensive enough that they are worth growing. At least that was my impression.
 
2012-10-08 11:21:45 PM  

Bullseyed: I don't know how to pound this through idiots skulls...

A tax break for buying a corporate jet is a subsidy for the corporate jet industry, not the oil industry.

The tax deduction encourages people to buy jets, and the jet companies therefore make more money. Since the cost of the jet can be partially or fully written off, they'll do less negotiating on price, leading to higher margins for the jet industry.



So having a cheap private jet doesn't help your company at all? Go figure
 
2012-10-08 11:52:16 PM  

reimanr06: Muta: Am I the only one who looks at wind energy as a way to reduce farm subsidies? Look at it this way... farming is an import industry in any country that wants to be independent. If you can't grow enough food then you are dependent on a foreign country for survival. So farming is critical. Farming is also volatile since it is heavily dependent on the weather. A second revenue stream for farmers would level out the revenue peaks and valleys inherent in farming.

What do farmers have that they can use for a second revenue stream? They have gobs of land. A wind generator has a small foot print so takes a minimal amount land away from food production yet can help the farmer create a second income from his biggest asset. With a second revenue stream the farmer is less likely to go bankrupt during draughts or other cataclysmic weather event. Since the farmer will still have revenue from the wind generator even in times of draught, he will be less dependent on government handouts. With development of wind farms, the US can reduce farm subsidies.

Farm subsidies aren't about keeping farmers afloat during bad times. They are about keeping some foods very cheap, and some foods expensive enough that they are worth growing. At least that was my impression.


Afaik it's both keeping farmers farming (which means not letting farmLAND disappear) as well as making food cheap (fatness aside, cheap food can be a good thing for a society) and about keeping a surplus. A money driven farming market would result in the occaisional famine, and our cities are too big to go hunt our way through a season.
 
2012-10-09 02:11:54 AM  

DrPainMD: FTA: "Obama thinks the American people are stupid."

Obama would be correct.


Yeah, it's telling when articles like this one prove their own stupidity.

"but,but b- statisticals!"
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report