WorldTraveller Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Again, you're misinformed. He's not anti green, that's just you spewing misinformation yet again, the problem is that you aren't able to comprehend the difference between R&D and tax credits. You can call it "purity" all you'd like, if that's something that makes you feel good inside, by all means continue. So while you call it "asanine" , we are seeing the results of obamas green energy plans that rely heavily on tax credits and subsidies, and unfortunately for us the tax payers, the only thing that is "asanine" are obamas results on his energy policies. Why don't we just agree to disagree? Deal? And where do you get this idea that " I could care less about oil tax credits"? Link? Oh that's right, there is no link, again, your just making stuff up. That's becoming a habit with you. Again, long before you got here, I've made my position clear here on this board that I was against the oil tax breaks. But keep embarrassing yourself, it's amusing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Again, you're misinformed. He's not anti green, that's just you spewing misinformation yet again, the problem is that you aren't able to comprehend the difference between R&D and tax credits. You can call it "purity" all you'd like, if that's something that makes you feel good inside, by all means continue. So while you call it "asanine" , we are seeing the results of obamas green energy plans that rely heavily on tax credits and subsidies, and unfortunately for us the tax payers, the only thing that is "asanine" are obamas results on his energy policies. Why don't we just agree to disagree? Deal? No deal here. The winners and loser argument isn't intellectually consistent when credits are pervasive in our tax code for all sorts of continuing business flush w/ cash including Oil. And anyway the future energy market is one of the few where public incentives are crucial. And Obama's green energy initiative supports these credits....as every President since the early 90s have. I don't think Mitt hates green energy and desires CO2 emissions and oil addiction. But this policy makes absolutely no sense, and is asinine. It shows an utter lack of understanding of what is going on in the global market for future energy and the impact of tax credits on our domestic leadership in innovation and production of alternative energy. And aside from environmental and future energy independence concerns, It also is pissing off Iowa officials b/c it directly threatens jobs in their state immediately if it goes away...a not so insignificant side effect for people in Iowa and many other states. I've yet to see a Romney position I disagree with as much as this one. There is almost no credible argument to defend it. Obama is green, his political philosophy is to turn anything Obama supports toxic regardless of its merit, and so now Mitt Romney (former moderate Republican) is against tax credits for domestic wind production. It's just bad. Edited August 8, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Makes no sense to you, and that's understandable, you believe in market intervention, which is similar to the argument we had the other day in the demarco thread. it's sorta like the women are from Venus and men from mars adage. We won't see eye to eye on this subject. The big difference however is I see the logic in the tax credits argument, I disagree with it, and history is on my side, but you're incapable of seeing the reason in the opposition to this philosophy even though the verdict is in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Makes no sense to you, and that's understandable, you believe in market intervention, which is similar to the argument we had the other day in the demarco thread. it's sorta like the women are from Venus and men from mars adage. We won't see eye to eye on this subject. The big difference however is I see the logic in the tax credits argument, I disagree with it, and history is on my side, but you're incapable of seeing the reason in the opposition to this philosophy even though the verdict is in. What I'm saying you don't understand is not that intervention in markets is good. It's that there are a few special instances where market forces are not going to take us to the promise land. With all the global competition for clean energy, CO2 reductions efforts, and the status quo....if we are going to stay competitive and be a leader in both energy independence and CO2 reduction then these tax credits are a good thing. And their elimination (to sound like a broken record) without the elimination across the bar off all other credits (including oil, coal, etc) is nothing more than backwards energy and environmental policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) I But you support the elimination of tax credits for green energy while Mitt could care less about Oil credits? Mitt's a philosophical purist here in this position? Mitt is doubling down on anti-green sentiment and meanwhile, India, China, Germany...they can have public incentives and become the leaders of the future. We'll do nothing and let the market work...and by the market work we mean give credits for oil but not wind. This is plain and simple the wrong step and I'm actually as surprised as the Iowa GOP. I disagree with a lot of Romney's positions but few seem as totally asinine as this one. This is quite literally, an anti-future energy policy. It's not about guaranteed loans, it's not about ideology, it's plain and simple about giving the finger to green energy b/c Obama likes it. I read that Germany is cutting back on renewable energy and are worried about “insolvencies, plant closures and job losses. We need jobs in this country and green energy doesn't appear to be a labor intensive industry. Edited August 8, 2012 by tomato can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I disagree, i believe if we want to have the best shot at being competitive vs china is not to continue throwing money into a sinkhole. We aren't going to be able to out subsidize china. They can afford the massive losses, they have a massive surplus, we don't. So you don't compete with them head to head on subsides that aren't paying a return. You beat them by investing in technology. We need to be much more efficient and develop this energy future by making it economically viable and the best way I believe we can do that is to pour even more money into R&D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I read that Germany is cutting back on renewable energy and are worried about “insolvencies, plant closures and job losses. We need jobs in this country and green energy doesn't appear to be a labor intensive industry. Tell that to Iowa GOP I disagree, i believe if we want to have the best shot at being competitive vs china is not to continue throwing money into a sinkhole. We aren't going to be able to out subsidize china. They can afford the massive losses, they have a massive surplus, we don't. So you don't compete with them head to head on subsides that aren't paying a return. You beat them by investing in technology. We need to be much more efficient and develop this energy future by making it economically viable and the best way I believe we can do that is to pour even more money into R&D It's not subsidizing. If it is then so is everything we do in every other industry and dealings w/ oil and coal. And yes it is true we can't compete with direct subsidizing China offers w/ free land, free worker training and 20 year tax holidays. But given that we can and have been helping our domestic production of green energy with credits, and creating jobs, and accelerating the innovation curve, and increasingly furthering our independence and CO2 output...it's a no brainer. It's important to keep these credits. These credits ARE INVESTMENT IN TECHNOLOGY. Direct investment in R&D is something I support as well! Obama supports that! That is actually something we all agree on! But helping provide tax credits to make it more economically viable for domestic companies to get in the game IS CRUCIAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Well again, I disagree, it is subsidizing. Providing a tax credit for a company is a form of subsidy . We're just basically saying the same the same thing over and over but repackaging it with different words. We will just have to agree that you're from Venus and that I'm from mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Well again, I disagree, it is subsidizing. Providing a tax credit for a company is a form of subsidy . We're just basically saying the same the same thing over and over but repackaging it with different words. We will just have to agree that you're from Venus and that I'm from mars. I will agree to disagree is we accept that I am from Earth and you are from Mars where no tax expenditures for anything exist. And btw also, on Mars that's what Mitt Romney believes too. Edited August 8, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts