Federal grants to pay off federal loans . . .

pineinthegrass wrote: You call it "investments" for alternative fuels, but call it "subsidies" for fossil fuels. Is there a difference between the terms you use other than one sounds better than the other?

And can you be specific as to what "subsidies" (I think we are actually talking about tax deductions) fossil fuel developers/producers get that other companies do not get? Maybe I'll learn something, but last time I looked into it I couldn't find a big difference from tax deductions other companies get (including those outside the energy sector) other than the name of it.

And no, I have no problem with alternative energy so long as it doesn't cost a whole lot more after all tax breaks are considered. I really hope they succeed. I had a solar water heater on my roof years ago, which had a high pressure water leak causing a hole in my ceiling which flooded a room in my house (would of been a much bigger disaster had I not been home). Oops. And I've looked into solar cells on the roof recently, but I still don't see the payback yet and I'm again worried about damage to the roof due to a bad installation which would cause other problems. But I digress...

I called it investments and subsidies simply from a perspective there really is little difference. Both are "gifts" to private firms in my mind. For renewables in this case specifically, the "gift" is in the payoff of a Federal loan in the form of a grant. For fossil fuels, the "gift" is in the form of a tax subsidy. Again, both are "gifts", one of which arguably does not even come close to "needing" it given their record profits.

The issue for me is in the finite aspect of fossil fuels vis a vis the infinite aspect of renewables. It would seem to me renewables should be given a relatively high priority given their huge potential for increased efficiencies, both in performance and in cost.

I chose to focus on oil company tax subsidies because we are talking about energy production in this thread. I'm not sure other energy producers, such as coal, hydro, and nuclear get the same type of subsidies. I'd have to do more research on that. The fact Wall Street firms got a huge bailout both under Bush and Obama bothers me greatly. As I said in a previous post, we, the taxpayer, got little, if anything, in return for those "investments". Investing in renewables is something I believe will pay dividends, both to taxpayers and to the environment.

Sorry to hear about your situation with rooftop solar. We've been looking into types of solar panels now that actually are embedded in glass windows. Some panels are flexible and portable. The possibilities for this technology are endless. That's why I believe investments/subsidies would be better placed in this industry.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: How can paying taxes to build something and then paying higher rates to consume what it produces be considered and "investment" by anyone with the IQ God gave a fence post? That's not an investment, it's government sanctioned theft.

And there's yer sign.....

Investments in alternatives to fossil fuels called renewables are just as "necessary" from my perspective as subsidies are to fossil fuel developers/producers. Some consider those kinds of subsidies to be government sanctioned theft, as well.

In the end, fossil fuels are finite resources. Renewables are are called that for a very good reason.

The sign of the times - cronyism of the capital variety. The inevitable result of a powerful central government with no practicable, or practical for that matter, limit on their ability to tax and spend.

And investment in alternatives to fossil fuels would be for the federal government to hire Google and NGR Energy to build an array like that to power the Capital, or to power the 10 square miles they have exclusive authority over mentioned in the Constitution. Then the taxpayers, all of them, would be getting something in exchange for their taxes other than another campaign contribution to one of the parties in the next election and a higher bill to pay at the end of the month to fund it. Is the difference becoming clear to you yet Z or does it yet remain unfocused?

Carbon based fuels are renewable too Z, don't forget that salient fact.

ZHawke wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: You call it "investments" for alternative fuels, but call it "subsidies" for fossil fuels. Is there a difference between the terms you use other than one sounds better than the other?

And can you be specific as to what "subsidies" (I think we are actually talking about tax deductions) fossil fuel developers/producers get that other companies do not get? Maybe I'll learn something, but last time I looked into it I couldn't find a big difference from tax deductions other companies get (including those outside the energy sector) other than the name of it.

And no, I have no problem with alternative energy so long as it doesn't cost a whole lot more after all tax breaks are considered. I really hope they succeed. I had a solar water heater on my roof years ago, which had a high pressure water leak causing a hole in my ceiling which flooded a room in my house (would of been a much bigger disaster had I not been home). Oops. And I've looked into solar cells on the roof recently, but I still don't see the payback yet and I'm again worried about damage to the roof due to a bad installation which would cause other problems. But I digress...

I called it investments and subsidies simply from a perspective there really is little difference. Both are "gifts" to private firms in my mind. For renewables in this case specifically, the "gift" is in the payoff of a Federal loan in the form of a grant. For fossil fuels, the "gift" is in the form of a tax subsidy. Again, both are "gifts", one of which arguably does not even come close to "needing" it given their record profits.

The issue for me is in the finite aspect of fossil fuels vis a vis the infinite aspect of renewables. It would seem to me renewables should be given a relatively high priority given their huge potential for increased efficiencies, both in performance and in cost.

I chose to focus on oil company tax subsidies because we are talking about energy production in this thread. I'm not sure other energy producers, such as coal, hydro, and nuclear get the same type of subsidies. I'd have to do more research on that. The fact Wall Street firms got a huge bailout both under Bush and Obama bothers me greatly. As I said in a previous post, we, the taxpayer, got little, if anything, in return for those "investments". Investing in renewables is something I believe will pay dividends, both to taxpayers and to the environment.

Sorry to hear about your situation with rooftop solar. We've been looking into types of solar panels now that actually are embedded in glass windows. Some panels are flexible and portable. The possibilities for this technology are endless. That's why I believe investments/subsidies would be better placed in this industry.

The job of the federal government is to treat all of the citizens of the States, all of the States, and all of the corporations the same, to not discriminate for or against any of them, to not pick winners and losers from among them. Handing out guaranteed loans to one industry but not another violates this fundamental concept of governing. Handing out grants to pay back the loans only makes the discrimination practiced by the federal government worse. If the federal government desires that companies invest in new equipment then it puts into place a mechanism by which that investment is rewarded, for every company in every sector, not a few selected companies in a favored sector.

PrintSmith wrote: The job of the federal government is to treat all of the citizens of the States, all of the States, and all of the corporations the same, to not discriminate for or against any of them, to not pick winners and losers from among them. Handing out guaranteed loans to one industry but not another violates this fundamental concept of governing. Handing out grants to pay back the loans only makes the discrimination practiced by the federal government worse. If the federal government desires that companies invest in new equipment then it puts into place a mechanism by which that investment is rewarded, for every company in every sector, not a few selected companies in a favored sector.

If that is the case, then subsidies to the fossil fuel industry should be considered in the same light as far as I'm concerned.

PrintSmith wrote: Carbon based fuels are renewable too Z, don't forget that salient fact.

I assume you are referencing "bio-fuels", correct?

What is referred to today as fossil fuels are essentially very old bio-fuels when all is said and done, so there really aren't any carbon based fuels that aren't biofuels.

PrintSmith wrote: What is referred to today as fossil fuels are essentially very old bio-fuels when all is said and done, so there really aren't any carbon based fuels that aren't biofuels.

So, what, then are you referring to (there - I took the bait).

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: The job of the federal government is to treat all of the citizens of the States, all of the States, and all of the corporations the same, to not discriminate for or against any of them, to not pick winners and losers from among them. Handing out guaranteed loans to one industry but not another violates this fundamental concept of governing. Handing out grants to pay back the loans only makes the discrimination practiced by the federal government worse. If the federal government desires that companies invest in new equipment then it puts into place a mechanism by which that investment is rewarded, for every company in every sector, not a few selected companies in a favored sector.

If that is the case, then subsidies to the fossil fuel industry should be considered in the same light as far as I'm concerned.

A subsidy is a direct payment from the government to the recipient. To my knowledge there aren't any subsidies in place for the "fossil fuel" industry. There are some tax credits, some tax exemptions, but no subsidies. Not taxing income and paying out income derived from tax revenues are not the same thing. Redefining words to mean what one wishes them to mean in order to give them credibility isn't something I'm going to sit idly by and allow from anyone.

Do me one more favor. Please dispense with the tired, worn out and totally discredited meme of "record profits" for the oil industry. That industry is making no more now, as a percentage of their total revenues, than they have over the course of decades. Gets back to the truth of the statement that figures don't lie but liars do figure.

PrintSmith wrote: A subsidy is a direct payment from the government to the recipient. To my knowledge there aren't any subsidies in place for the "fossil fuel" industry. There are some tax credits, some tax exemptions, but no subsidies. Not taxing income and paying out income derived from tax revenues are not the same thing. Redefining words to mean what one wishes them to mean in order to give them credibility isn't something I'm going to sit idly by and allow from anyone.

Do me one more favor. Please dispense with the tired, worn out and totally discredited meme of "record profits" for the oil industry. That industry is making no more now, as a percentage of their total revenues, than they have over the course of decades. Gets back to the truth of the statement that figures don't lie but liars do figure.

Call it a frog. It's still a "benefit" that these companies enjoy at our expense, and, according to everything I've seen, they simply don't "need" those benefits.

I won't do you a favor because I don't agree with you on the "record profits" thingy. Percentage wise, you are probably correct. The profits have been shown to be quite "pedestrian" in the article I looked at. In dollar terms, though, the profits these companies make are indicative, to me, they don't need tax credits, tax deductions, or any other kinds of tax benefits you can describe.

It could be inferred by your rhetoric that you are calling me a liar since you didn't "qualify" whom you were talking about.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: A subsidy is a direct payment from the government to the recipient. To my knowledge there aren't any subsidies in place for the "fossil fuel" industry. There are some tax credits, some tax exemptions, but no subsidies. Not taxing income and paying out income derived from tax revenues are not the same thing. Redefining words to mean what one wishes them to mean in order to give them credibility isn't something I'm going to sit idly by and allow from anyone.

Do me one more favor. Please dispense with the tired, worn out and totally discredited meme of "record profits" for the oil industry. That industry is making no more now, as a percentage of their total revenues, than they have over the course of decades. Gets back to the truth of the statement that figures don't lie but liars do figure.

Call it a frog. It's still a "benefit" that these companies enjoy at our expense, and, according to everything I've seen, they simply don't "need" those benefits.

I won't do you a favor because I don't agree with you on the "record profits" thingy. Percentage wise, you are probably correct. The profits have been shown to be quite "pedestrian" in the article I looked at. In dollar terms, though, the profits these companies make are indicative, to me, they don't need tax credits, tax deductions, or any other kinds of tax benefits you can describe.

It could be inferred by your rhetoric that you are calling me a liar since you didn't "qualify" whom you were talking about.

You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own set of facts. I infer from your comment you went looking for a supporting link to support "record profits" and came away empty.