While Obama sleeps

Here's Obama talking about how he will, and now has, driven up the cost of coal power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R50o1KzVBMg

Does PJ care to tell us about government subsidies that the New Mexico solar plant has and will receive?

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Here are the basics of this new solar program at Indianapolis Airport.

1. IPL produces through electricity through traditional methods for 2 cents per kwh.
2. IPL sells electricity for 8 cents per kwh
3. IPL is required by the government to buy this solar electricity at a cost of 29 cents per kwh.

PJ, do you actually believe that turning 29 cents into 2 cents is good for the economy? That money would have been spent elsewhere and a fair and equitable transfer of value would have happened.


"Indianapolis Power & Light will buy the solar farm's power. The sun-generated power will cost three to four times more than IPL can sell it for, so the utility will subsidize the difference by raising rates to its customers, a utility official said. The increase in electric bills to subsidize the solar farm amounts to several cents a month on the average customer bill, the utility has said."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2013/10/21/indianapolis-airport-solar-farm-is-largest-of-its-kind/3143705/



??? You are using an anecdote to make a broad point? I can play too!
El Paso Energy is buying solar power for half the price it pays for coal energy.
El Paso wants 15% solar but 2016

"The utility signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with the massive Macho Springs solar plant in New Mexico, a 50 megawatt (MW) facility with the capacity to power more than 18,000 homes. According to the agreement, signed last year, EPE would buy solar power from Macho Springs for 5.79 cents a kilowatt-hour — less than half the 12.8 cents per kilowatt-hour average price for electricity from new coal plants, according to Bloomberg."

But to answer your question: Yes! I do think new industries and technology are good for the economy and job creation.

Boilerman can pretend the alternative energy sector does not create jobs or hire anybody. Whatever helps him sleep at night.
Boilerman cant pretend that he has a single standard when it comes to classifying the way government gives money to corporations. He has put his double standard on full display in this thread.


I'm sure solar projects will get tax credits and/or subsidies. I'm equally sure that Exxon and DuPont get them too.

The difference between you and me is that I dont use different scales for different companies. And I dont pretend to embrace an ideology that forbids them while you do.
The oil industry gets a credit for depleting it's oil reserves. Unlike a manufacturing that creates inventory by making something, oil companies explore for their inventory & upon discovering the field it is worth x billions.

They then get to expense that oil reserve
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
I'm sure solar projects will get tax credits and/or subsidies. I'm equally sure that Exxon and DuPont get them too.

The difference between you and me is that I dont use different scales for different companies. And I dont pretend to embrace an ideology that forbids them while you do.


What a minute, you are always complaining about corp. welfare for some corp.s and yet embrace those for teh ones you like. Methinks you are the one with the double standards.


A couple of years ago I did research of "big oil" subsidies. It amounted to about $4 billion annually, as I recall, and a large percentage of this was for green energy projects like wind (Stat Oil is into wind, BP is (or was) into wind.

In comparison, green energy had magnificently more subsidies dollars than oil, and produce about 1/100th of the energy when compared to big oil (remember where not talking just electricity). On a scale of subsidy per BTU, I wouldn't be surprised if "green energy" got $1000 (or more) in subsidies for every $1 that oil companies receive in subsidies.

I dislike subsidies for any oil company and any non-oil company. That being said, big oil pays a couple of hundred billion each year in taxes, plus they pay the government for land leases, plus they pay huge sums for production royalties to Obama and friends (Bush too). When you compare government "revenues" from oil to the revenues that they pay to the American government, the subsidies are mathematically insignificant. I believe the royalties run at 18% of sales revenue for many years for each well, but I'll need to confirm that (and I'll report back). To the contrary, subsidies amount to a huge amount of green energy revenue.

Here's a huge question. Accounting wise, should a gas powered plant that is built as backup for wind and solar be exspensed to wind and solar, since that's what the gas plant was built for? I think so, yet Liberals wish to ignore this magnificent expense.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
I'm sure solar projects will get tax credits and/or subsidies. I'm equally sure that Exxon and DuPont get them too.

The difference between you and me is that I dont use different scales for different companies. And I dont pretend to embrace an ideology that forbids them while you do.


Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
You are correct, there are many additional government giveaways for ethanol related reasons. I did include the subsidy of ethanol producers at 50 cents per gallon, but didn't include many others.

EVERY GAS STATION WHICH PUMPS E-85 was given over $70,000 to install a tank, piping and a pump system. My buddy has three stations and received over $210,000 in giveways himself alone. Chef is correct, the list of stupidity is very long.


Quote

Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Feel free to check my numbers on gasoline taxes (50 cents per gallon), ethanol subsidies (50 cents per gallon, miles per gallon of E-85 vs gasoline (25% less MPG), and the price in Indiana of the two fuels (currently $3.00 for E-85 and $3.60/gallon on gas).

Do a little math and I challenge you to tell me where I'm wrong.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
PJ, taking $5.33 and turning it into $3.60 does not create jobs. It simply removes $1.73 of wealth from the economy for every gallon of E-85 sold. The more gallons sold, the more wealth removed, and the fewer jobs required. Does paying a guy to dig a hole and another guy to fill in that very hole create jobs? Nope, it simply removes wealth, and costs jobs.


Making up math and employment statisitics on the fly does not create jobs...or make a remotely intelligent argument.

Earlier I said Boilerman will have different standards. He proved me right. And his rationalization is that its good for tax payers to give welfare checks to companies that are already profitable without those checks.



Er B Man, you are missing some ethanol discounts:

Tax break per gallon of fuel
Tax break for every dollar invested (actually its a shelter to offset profits)
Subsidies for growing crops used in ethanol production (other than corn products)
Tax break on state and local taxes for building plants, plus the federal subsidies




It gets longer, these are just the ones I can remember.
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Isn't it cute when Democrats hold up George Bush as an example of presidential competence?


More like an example of our resident conservatives' hypocrisy. I never gave hell to GWB for Georgia...and neither did Don Diego or Hoops.

But if you think either president's reaction to Georgia/Ukraine was incompetant perhaps you can explain to us what the competent response would be.

Sure, MANY times when Obama does something the Republicans don't like, the Democrats point to George Bush having done the same. Yes indeed it may point out hypocrisy on the part of Republicans. But the ultimate hypocrisy is that it is George Bush you're holding up there...George Bush who Democrats consistently attacked as one of the worst presidents in history....and they may be right. Obama following Bush's examples doesn't make any points with me..it makes me think we got two incompetent presidents in a row. Apparently it's good for you though.

Now as to a 'competent response'. First off, let's put this constant presidential holiday and vacation shit to bed. If I were President, I wouldn't take a vacation. Period. I'd just roll up my sleeves and work every day. Maybe take a couple of 3 day weekends in my second term....but If he's not willing or can't handle that for 4 years, maybe he's not the right guy. I worked many years just like this and so do a lot of other Americans. Why can't our leader show a little more dedication? It's not like we've solved all our problems and there's nothing to do but play golf.

Now please PJ go ahead and show us how many vacations George Bush took. I'm sure we'll all feel better then.


I never once criticized Bush for taking too many vacation days. I challenge you to find any post of mine to that effect outside the context of pointing out Hoops' partisan-hypocrisy on that topic. I never once criticized Bush for taking a soft line in Georgia. I dont believe Bush's record in either case is something to be criticized. And I certainly dont think its ok in the context of one president and not another. And thats really the difference between people like me and some of our right-wing friends on this board.

BTW - we've never had any president in our history that worked without vacation. Is it your opinion we've never had a good president? I find that a little hard to believe and more than a little ridiculous...but its a free country. Good luck finding a candidate.


I think that candidate is being sworn in in about 20 days. DT said he wouldn't vacation or take a salary, we'll see if he holds to that.
Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99


I think that candidate is being sworn in in about 20 days. DT said he wouldn't vacation or take a salary, we'll see if he holds to that.


He said he'd release his tax returns too. He's good at telling people things they want to hear while having no intention of carrying through. And as long as his fans let him get away with it he'll keep doing it. I'm sure he could care less what I think
I suggested to The Donald that he lie, cheat, and slander during the campaign just as the Democrats have done for...................well, all my life. PJ suddenly finds such tactics offensive?

That's odd.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99


I think that candidate is being sworn in in about 20 days. DT said he wouldn't vacation or take a salary, we'll see if he holds to that.


He said he'd release his tax returns too. He's good at telling people things they want to hear while having no intention of carrying through. And as long as his fans let him get away with it he'll keep doing it. I'm sure he could care less what I think


Quote

Originally posted by: IndyBoilerman
I suggested to The Donald that he lie, cheat, and slander during the campaign just as the Democrats have done for...................well, all my life. PJ suddenly finds such tactics offensive?

That's odd.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99


I think that candidate is being sworn in in about 20 days. DT said he wouldn't vacation or take a salary, we'll see if he holds to that.


He said he'd release his tax returns too. He's good at telling people things they want to hear while having no intention of carrying through. And as long as his fans let him get away with it he'll keep doing it. I'm sure he could care less what I think



Congratulations. You got someone who does all of those things.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now