46 Republicans Claim Wind Credits Too ‘Costly’ After Voting To Retain Billions In Big Oil Subsid

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Right now, solar costs a little more but it's worth it.

What is it worth not to have a reactor malfunction in your back yard? Not to have your neighbors water poisoned because of fracking. Why should we blow up the sides of mountains? We do enough damage as it is. I'd rather pay a little more for solar and keep the mountain.

Halliburton and companies like them ain't gonna settle for solar coming in on THEIR territory. That is why they try so hard to elect a republican. These are Texas Oil men this is big money and they will kill for this business, some say they have. By all means I want Cheney and the GOP to have my money.

reply to post by newcovenant


Thorium reactor > solar. Solar has it's place for peak time production, it can't replace other methods.

Industrial hemp, grown on 6% of the farm land, can power, and fuel the entire nation, cleanly, and of course more can create hempstone for automobiles, homes, guitars, drums, anything you can imagine, computers, etc.

(aquaponics and various agriculture/food production techniques can multiply many of the crops grown several times over, so food production would not go down)

Wind/Solar added and you have a 100% clean, sustainable and survivable, energy source and may actually become an intelligent cosmic species.

And we also can stop putting our sewage treated or raw, into our waters and start to make methane fuel as well. We should have a choice, pull up and fill up with inexpensive biofuel, inexpensive methane, or if we really modded our vehicles, just throw some water into the bubbler.

reply to post by Unity_99


Industrial hemp does appear interesting. 6% of the US is a LOT though. As energy demands grow the number would grow. It's simply not feasible. Maybe for auto use though.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Anything's possible when you discard the pessimism.

The problem is that people are not willing to let go of outdated methods.

Originally posted by neo96
Yay!!!!!!!!!!

Another hate the GOP thread,Hate corporations thread, Hate "big oil thread".

Some people are so blinded by idelogy they never look deeper:

For instance:

n 2011, the United States consumed about 134 billion gallons1 (or 3.19 billion barrels2) of gasoline, a daily average of about 367.08 million gallons (8.74 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.38 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 2007.

www.eia.gov...

367 million of gallons sold each and every day 365 days a year then figure in the Feds cut of 18.4 cents for each and every gallon sold.

Then figure in the states cut which works out to around:

66 million a day= 24 billion a year and what is the return of alternative energy?

That same alternative energy subsidized by that "gas tax" ?

Oh yeah....

Carry on.....

Yay!!!!!

Another Neo blindly defending the GOP and corporatism response!

The thing to remember is that oil doesn`t belong to the oil companies that oil belongs to us the american people.
the oil companies pay a flat fee and get to pump as much of our oil as they want then sell it back to us by the gallon. Since it`s our oil it`s only fair that we (our government) should make the lion share of the profits from every gallon that we buy back from the oil companies.
If the oil companies can`t refine the oil and sell it back to us at a reasonable price then they should go elsewhere and pump someone elses oil.
The oil companies have it made, they make record profits every year from our oil, they pay little to no taxes and we even give them our tax money so that they can pump our oil and sell it back to us at ever increasing prices.

We are not going to ship all our food and goods, power our planes, or run all our vehicles on wind power, obviously.

theyre right...only its too costly for THEM...because theyre receiving buy-outs from the oil 'sin-dicate'~!

∞LOVE∞

mayallsoulsbefree*

reply to post by charles1952

It's my understanding (and I'd love to be corrected) that these are all or mostly depreciation allowances.

I believe the terms are interchangeable. Whichever way it is referred to as it amounts to a very large chunk of money that Big Oil does not have to pay taxes on. Tax subsidy is a term that applies to tax breaks whether it is a low income family receiving a refund for more than they paid or a large corporation excused out of paying taxes that, by the tax code, they would normally be paying. A tax subsidy is money that goes into the pocket of the filer whether it is a check issued by the government or not and does not count toward a profit reporting requirement.

What happens if the depreciation allowance is dis-allowed? The companies' taxes go up. And immediately thereafter they start charging more for oil and it's products.

Depreciation is a tax break that all business owners are entitled to and would not (as far as I've been able to research) be included in the loopholes in the Bill that Congress put forward. Depreciation is a simple credit that is given when business needs to replace equipment that has lost the entire sum of it's purchase price in value.

A study by an independent think tank (well they claim to be independent anyway, who knows these days)
concluded that ending these subsidies would most likely cost consumers an average of an additional two dollars per year. In other words, have virtually no effect on gas prices what so ever.

The gum is a bad deal because you don't get your money's worth, the steak is a good deal because you do. Investing in wind is, unfortunately, a bad deal for the same reason.

Sure the steak is a better deal at the moment, they had every advantage over gum. Steak had huge private and government investment for start-up, development, distribution and cost of operation. Gum has some interest (groundwork being laid because even the big oil guys know oil and gas won't last forever heck even they though bash it to death they have their own start ups and R&D going on with renewables). Even Bush Jr's administration said okay here's some grants give it a go, they also knew that someday a smooth transition is going to be needed when we run out of oil or WWIII happens and we lose access to all that black gold). The thing is that currently and for the next decade or three there will still be plenty of oil to make our world go around so it's pretty vital to companies that rake in 31 billion in profit a year to protect that earning capability and keep access to renewables er I mean gum to a minimum and propagandize them into oblivion, but rest assured all those companies that are currently selling steak and telling us gum is worthless will one day be selling us the technology and access to gum... gosh if only gum didn't begin to pay for itself after a few years.

I truly enjoy our discussions Charles

Corporations pay taxes and lots of them. If you believe they don't, I've got some beachfront property to sell you in Oklahoma. Lets look at Shell's financials...2011 shell pdfincome before taxes (not total revenue, there is cost of business) 2011 = 55.6 billion, taxes paid=24.5 billion or roughly 44% in taxes. not exactly getting away with anything here. Fact is many people only believe what MSM tells them and have never had economics, accounting or corporate finance classes.

Depreciation is an expense that ANY business takes, to recoup the loss in value as its useful life goes by. You dont get to depreciate forever and there are several ways to depreciate assets i.e mileage, usage, straight-line, or MACRS. But what happens when you sell an asset? You don't get to run away from the IRS you will pay a fee or tax if you will on the recapture of the depreciation. see irs link: irs pub 544

Now that is just one business in America that pays taxes at a rate of over 35% and people want more of their earnings? The common stockholders expect a return on their investment. So the folks who want to tax those big evil corporations even more, de-incentivize investment.

Take or leave those facts.

Republicans love giving out corporate welfare while complaining about foodstamps. Profits over people! Profits over the environment! Profits over everything, the only thing that matters.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Republicans love giving out corporate welfare while complaining about foodstamps. Really disgusting party. They also hate the Earth and all the poor people on it.

The politcal trolling from moronic members
is not only laughable it is OBVIOUS..

When you people get over your jealously and american
hating maybe then can you all wake up.

Wind credits are a waste of money.... The tech is not there yet...

Dispelling myths and lying is really all this partisan
who said she said is..

SHAME ON YOU

reply to post by Kali74

The right thing to do is to stop both practices.

The government has no business in either. They have a proven track record of being wasteful, mismanaged and consistently wrong. You see whats happening with ethanol not to mention every other failed government program.

If a private company thinks it makes sense for them to invest in an industry, so be it. They should succeed or fail on their own.

You'd be insane to continue giving money to these green energy companies. Enough is enough!

Amonix Solar: FAIL! – manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, subsidized by more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants given by Obama Administration, has closed its 214,000 square foot facility a year after it opened.

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

Bright Source: FAIL! - Bright Source warned Obama’s 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! - Obama 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 struggling… 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 from Obama

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 from Obama and it has lost $400M

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

Azure Dynamics: FAIL! - Azure Dynamics files for bankruptcy in June wasting millions in Obama “Stimulus” and tax credits. Azure Dynamics LLC filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada and the US. Azure laid off 120 of its 160 employees in Oak Park; Boston; Vancouver, British Columbia; and the UK.

Evergreen Solar: FAIL! - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama filed bankruptcy

Ener1: FAIL! received more than $100 million in government funding from the Obama administration filed for bankruptcy January 2012

reply to post by jjkenobi


Don't forget Fisker Automotive and their promises to bring jobs to Delaware after taking $20M from Delaware and $193M of the $528M allotted in Federal money.

I had 4 interviews and nada nothing...no jobs here.

reply to post by Kali74

Dear Kali74,

This is not meant as a criticism of other posters, everyone has their own style, and all that, but sometimes I wish I could say "Can't we go some place a little quieter?"

I looked at your study, and it seemed to be pretty decent in the areas it covered. One thing that struck me about it was the small benefit it would bring to the government. Sure, every little bit helps, but the study was projecting savings to the government of $31.48 billion over 10 years, or about 1/10 of 1% of our spending. But still, a savings worth picking up if possible. The study seems to be saying "small cost to the country, small benefit to the government," and I am a friend of small steps.

That belief is continued through "Our Assesment" on page 14. There are only a couple of troubling notes there.

One concern is that instability of the tax system may add to uncertainty and slow investment activity.

I think we're seeing some of that uncertainty.

Against a backdrop of weakened natural gas prices, however, the elimination of oil and gas company tax preferences could reduce current employment.not just prospective gains in employment. Moreover, because capital]intensive industries have larger multiplier effects than labor intensive industries, spillovers to the rest of the economy could be noticeable in the short run.

But I'm not criticizing the study, I'm glad you brought it up. I think it makes the case for lifting subsidies a little stronger.

My confusion, which had been clearing up, deepened when I read a Forbes article with the title:

The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them

How could I pass up that headline?
www.forbes.com...

They use an interesting definition for "subsidies" that comes from Oil Change International. For the article, the definition is key, it is

“any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.”

That seems to be good, but be careful, if you accept it, most of the case for ending subsidies goes away.

Oil Change International comes up with a figure of $4.5 billion a year in subsidies, not terribly far from the $3 billion plus figure used in that 2009 study you linked.

The reason liberals like the subsidies can be seen in the three largest ones:

The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in “oil subsidies.”

And finally, the tax issue:

Last year CNN did a story where they put together their own list of the so-called oil subsidies, and in their list the “largest single tax break” — amounting to $1.7 billion per year for the oil industry — is a manufacturer’s tax deduction that is defined in Section 199 of the IRS code. This is a tax credit designed to keep manufacturing in the U.S., but it isn’t specific to oil companies. It is a tax credit enjoyed by highly profitable companies like Microsoft and Apple, and even foreign companies that operate factories in the U.S. Further, the deduction for oil companies is already limited. Apple is able to take a 9% manufacturer’s tax deduction, but ExxonMobil is only allowed to take a 6% deduction.

Your point about short-term v. long term thinking is a very good one. Somehow, we should try to do both, oil and gas now, and alternative for the future. Of course we're not sure about which alternatives are best, or when the "future" will come, but they should be explored. In the meantime, I think most people want to use energy that's been produced in the US, and that means working for a strong energy industry.

May I say that I not only enjoy my talks with you as well, but I learn from them. I'm very grateful to you.

With respect,
Charles1952

I truly enjoy our discussions Charles

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Republicans love giving out corporate welfare while complaining about foodstamps. Profits over people! Profits over the environment! Profits over everything, the only thing that matters.

edit on 3-10-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Republicans vote to debate this, and then Democrats chose to debate the Postal Service instead? Democrats love political posturing while doing nothing to change the things they say are broken.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


That is true but neither party seems to actually want to fix anything, they just cater to their lobbyists. If Big Oil started paying off Dems they'd switch their tune on oil real quick... but nothing would unite the people faster than both party's getting along... unite against that is.

reply to post by Kali74


Pretty much my point. Democrats are only talking, they don't want to repeal anything. As soon as Republicans shocked them by agreeing to the debate Democrats got outta dodge. My point was that BOTH parties want this. Which you seem to agree with.