Federal grants to pay off federal loans . . .

jf1acai wrote: Err, what was the question again? Looked to me like it was answered. Maybe I missed something?

Um, yes, you did miss something - the part where this was said:

I can honestly say that your latest offering is but the latest misrepresentation of what I said.

in reference to the original question I asked.

I stood by my question then. I stand by it now in the context in which it was asked and the response I received, not that it was answered.

jf1acai wrote:

"ZHawke wrote: Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that dishonest and deceptive tactics are an exclusive characteristic of the left?

PrintSmith wrote: Nowhere did I say that such tactics were confined to the left.

ZHawke" wrote: I stand by the question.

Err, what was the question again? Looked to me like it was answered. Maybe I missed something?

The only question is what statement of mine Z finds grounds to base his query. My response was a factual repudiation of his premise, which is something Z encounters far too often for his liking in discussions with me.

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: I didn't want to interupt this debate, but I have to ask one question Z. Are you against oil companies being able to deduct all their expenses from their income? If not all, or any, which expenses would you agree and disagree with?

Seriously, though, this is one (or two) of those questions that try to paint me into a corner from my perspective. Before I give an answer, I'm going to ask you to share your views on this first.

Well not having red the following responses yet, I'll give you my view. As a once long time business owner I can't imagine disallowing only certain companies or industries the ability to deduct expenses that are essential to production, exploration, innovation, etc...to me, that is un-American. It baffles my mind that so many on the left don't seem to understand how important our energy producers are to this country. Without affordable energy, our manufacturing can't compete, our businesses can't thrive, the people can't afford to drive or heat/cool their homes, and our economy can never thrive and pay down the 18 trillion worth of debt that will eventually crush us. Every single product you buy and every service you use would cost more.

Like every business or industry, risk is required for every reward... if the reward is not great enough, nobody is going to take on the risk. If you take away the right of one industry to deduct expenses from gross income, the entire industry will have no other choice that to raise prices all the way down the line and land on top of the consumer.

I understand the left hates most everything "big" (except for government) and really can't stand the rich (except for the rich they approve of), but what the left can't do is find us new efficient ways to replace the life blood of our economy... affordable energy. I'm all in for new forms of energy that don't come from the ground, but to intentionally raise energy costs on a country that can't afford it seems like insanity to me.

Now I answered... your turn.

PrintSmith wrote: The only question is what statement of mine Z finds grounds to base his query. My response was a factual repudiation of his premise, which is something Z encounters far too often for his liking in discussions with me.

Not a question, PrintSmith. Rather, a logical assumption made from the inference YOU put forward. Saying something and implying something are two totally different things.

There was no inference, no assumptions, other than the ones you brought with you into the discussion Z. The statement I made stands on its own and the effort to expand it beyond those boundaries to include that which wasn't said is deceitful and disingenuous, which only goes to supporting the subject matter of the statement itself when all is said and done.

Thank you, Rick. Here goes:

Rick wrote: Well not having red the following responses yet, I'll give you my view. As a once long time business owner I can't imagine disallowing only certain companies or industries the ability to deduct expenses that are essential to production, exploration, innovation, etc...to me, that is un-American. It baffles my mind that so many on the left don't seem to understand how important our energy producers are to this country. Without affordable energy, our manufacturing can't compete, our businesses can't thrive, the people can't afford to drive or heat/cool their homes, and our economy can never thrive and pay down the 18 trillion worth of debt that will eventually crush us. Every single product you buy and every service you use would cost more.

I'm not so sure that "allowing"/"disallowing" deductions is even the issue when one comes right down to it. If we could, perhaps, look at things as being "incentivizations", instead? That may ultimately wind up being a semantics type play on words, but it's something I tend toward more than the other. That being said, "fairness" across the board is essential, as you imply. Benefiting one industry while harming another is, in fact, un-American, in my view. I also believe both the fossil fuel and renewable industries are "guilty" of self-promotion while trying their best to curtail the other. That's a belief of mine, right or wrong.

I agree - there are some on the left who "villainize" energy producers when it comes to oil, gas, coal, and even nuclear. However, we don't ALL share that view. If, and until, the United States upgrades its outdated power grid to help accommodate growth in alternatives/renewables, this country will continue to rely on fossil fuel energy producers, a reliance that will ultimately cost us even more when it runs out. We won't see it in our lifetimes, but our children may, or their children may, or somewhere down the line, someone will. That is an undeniable fact.

Conversely, and to parrot your phrase, it baffles my mind that some on the right continue to believe those on the left are putting forth a mantra of eliminating all fossil fuel energy production immediately and for all time. That simply is not true.

Before my retirement, I worked in the area of dam safety. While there, I learned a lot about what it takes to build a hydro facility in a remote area. Two prime examples of that are the Grand Coulee Dam in the state of Washington and Hoover Dam on the Arizona/Nevada border. I believe we've kind of lost site of just how difficult it was at the time these dams were built to "tie into" an existing power grid, at that time far, far away from these construction sites. That it was accomplished way back then tells me it can be accomplished today, as well when it comes to both solar and wind energy. We just need the "will" to do so.

The perspective those more on the left have toward fossil fuels is that the fossil fuel industry has a "vested interest" in energy production while also caring little to nothing about their environmental impacts while doing so. Right or wrong or somewhere in between, that isn't a view that's shared by everyone on the left. I've seen how some of these companies "mine" their products. Some are more careful about this than others. I grew up in a state where strip mining of coal was, and still is, a major source of coal gasification power. Those companies did a remarkable job of "putting back" the areas that were strip mined to as close a condition to what they started out with as they possibly could. But then, those conditions were topographically easy to accommodate. That just isn't the case when it comes to mining factors in the Appalachians, as just one example.

My bottom line is exploration and production of fossil fuels should go forward with the appropriate incentives and restraints in place to do so. In order to do that, they must also go forward with a logical and sound balance between production and potential environmental and societal (in the areas in which it takes place) impacts. We're seeing huge environmental and societal impacts right now in the oil patch that encompasses the Bakken ( www.thebakken.com/ ). While the energy this area produces is essential, the impacts on the area are deep, both from a positive and a negative perspective.

Rick wrote: Like every business or industry, risk is required for every reward... if the reward is not great enough, nobody is going to take on the risk. If you take away the right of one industry to deduct expenses from gross income, the entire industry will have no other choice that to raise prices all the way down the line and land on top of the consumer.

I agree. There is inherent risk in everything we do. We seek those rewards, no doubt. I, by no means, speak for everyone on the left, but when I see what appears to me to be a headlong rush to reap the rewards of something and not try to plan for and address the potential impacts those rewards might have while reaping them, it causes me concern. I'm not anti-fossil fuel production. I'm "cautious" fossil-fuel production. The KXL Pipeline is just such an issue. The tar sands are environmentally unfriendly. The costs to the environment from mining them is arguably disastrous. That the KXL Pipeline has been shown, depending upon whom one chooses to believe, to provide only 35 permanent jobs here in the U.S. gives me pause to wonder if the costs to the environment are worth it. Add to that the possibility the U.S. consumer may not even see the energy produced as a result of this pipeline being in place, and one must wonder about cost/benefit ratios, in my opinion.

Rick wrote: I understand the left hates most everything "big" (except for government) and really can't stand the rich (except for the rich they approve of), but what the left can't do is find us new efficient ways to replace the life blood of our economy... affordable energy. I'm all in for new forms of energy that don't come from the ground, but to intentionally raise energy costs on a country that can't afford it seems like insanity to me.

This is where we part ways on this. You understand the left hates most everything "big"? Those are the kind of blanket statements I take issue with.

As for the affordable energy thingy - again, where there's a will, there's also inevitably a way. American ingenuity has proven this time and time again. Achieving renewable energy independence isn't impossible. It's just something that needs some balance with the fossil fuels industry in order to help phase out what will eventually run out anyway and be able to take over from it when it does.

PrintSmith wrote: There was no inference, no assumptions, other than the ones you brought with you into the discussion Z. The statement I made stands on its own and the effort to expand it beyond those boundaries to include that which wasn't said is deceitful and disingenuous, which only goes to supporting the subject matter of the statement itself when all is said and done.

So you say - after the fact.

If you stick to what is actually said, rather than trying to figure out what lies beneath what is actually said, you will make fewer errors like the one you made here Z. Your beliefs regarding others necessarily colors the subjective practice of trying to divine hidden meanings in what others say and write.

PrintSmith wrote: If you stick to what is actually said, rather than trying to figure out what lies beneath what is actually said, you will make fewer errors like the one you made here Z. Your beliefs regarding others necessarily colors the subjective practice of trying to divine hidden meanings in what others say and write.

At the risk of offending you more, does the adage, "pot, kettle, black" mean anything to you?

The reality is we all do this in this forum. Mis-reading something is a characteristic inherent in all of us, not just in me, not just in you. Otherwise, we'd all be in agreement on everything.

With that, I'm going to exhibit what you once referred to as "petulance", and bid you, not the thread, itself, adieu.

And what separates us is our willingness to admit when we have erred rather than stubbornly cling to our error when it is pointed out to us.