View Poll Results: Is this CORPORATE WELFARE?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    7 77.78%
  • NO

    2 22.22%
  • OTHER (please explain)

    0 0%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Is this Corporate Welfare?

  1. #11
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,621

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    There is no way that can be the result of this program. It is a program designed to maintain the current Commercial Distribution of Energy by the status quo, instead of individual homeowners disconnecting from an expensive dinosaur. Keep in mind that the existing Big Money Utilities and government taxing agencies are splitting the profits in this existing system.
    Oh believe me...I get that the profit incentive is one of the biggest obstacles to encouraging individual outfitting of homes. Kinda tough to tax the sunlight. Still...if the pricetag to outfit a home with solar storage batteries is around 30k, even if the fed subsidized the taxpayer, it would still be a corporate bailout.

    If there isnt an investment for the sake of improving and enhancing capabilities and lower costs...then no...its not a good idea.

  2. #12
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,621

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by BobJam View Post
    But WHO projects the outcome? If it's not the free market making the bet, then WHO in the government makes the wager on behalf of the taxpayers? I don't know about you, but I can't think of anybody in the current administration I'd want to have making bets with MY money (in fact, I can't think of anybody in ANY US government historically I'd want to make bets for me.) I'll make my bets myself, and gladly be responsible for MY OWN poor judgment (some of my OWN stock picks have been losers, and I've suffered the consequences.)

    Government investment with MY taxes? Or private investment with stockholder money?

    Crystal ball? If we all knew how investments were going to perform "at the end of the day", then we'd all be rich . . . it wouldn't even be a wager, it'd be a certainty.
    Im the last person to rush to advocate for government spending. However...I am also very much pro clean energy. So its kinda a conundrum. Personally...I hate flying into big cities...something I do about a dozen times a year...and flying through a smog blanket. Like it or not, there HAS to be SOME investment for the public good. It should be EFFECTIVE.

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    I got to work in sales for a solar company for a few months. It's a feasible product in states where govt and corps have raised utility rates high enough ( CA, NJ, and Hawaii) but its not economical in places where electricity is really cheap.

    What makes me sick is that our govt put billions into solar companies for obama donors. I think it's $3 billion or for for solyndra, 1stwhatever, and others. Most peak energy systems can be installed for $30k or less. Do the math:

    $3,000,000,000 / $30,000 = 100,000 homes

    Yes they could have just put solar power on a 100,000 homes for the same money.

  4. #14
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,562

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Im the last person to rush to advocate for government spending. However...I am also very much pro clean energy. So its kinda a conundrum. Personally...I hate flying into big cities...something I do about a dozen times a year...and flying through a smog blanket. Like it or not, there HAS to be SOME investment for the public good. It should be EFFECTIVE.
    I never fly into any big cities, so I save that much pollution and energy waste. Perhaps rather than try to find the next magic energy bullet, a decade (or so) before its natural time, we just don't fly (monthly) in smog belching, noise pollution causing aircraft.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #15
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,562

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    There is no way that can be the result of this program. It is a program designed to maintain the current Commercial Distribution of Energy by the status quo, instead of individual homeowners disconnecting from an expensive dinosaur. Keep in mind that the existing Big Money Utilities and government taxing agencies are splitting the profits in this existing system.
    Yep. This is not about energy independence at all, but simply changing the source of our energy while keeping us dependent or increasing our dependence on the existing public/private "grid" systems at an ever higher cost.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #16
    User BobJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Last Seen
    01-02-13 @ 08:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    there HAS to be SOME investment for the public good
    I assume this is the "conundrum" you're talking about, i.e. WHO in the government chooses the investment.

    Don't mean to box you into a corner, but any current candidates in the current administration? Since you said there "HAS" to be, that automatically means there "HAS" to be someone selected. And whoever that person would be in the current administration would also have to render a judgment on WHAT is the "public good".

    Again, I don't mean to be abrasive or coy, but your statement is based on the presumption that there IS someone in the government capable of doing what you posit. I don't believe there is anyone in government even CLOSE to that.

    While I don't necessarily disagree with your statements about smog, I think the current efforts to reduce it are completely mismanaged.

    I was an Air Quality Engineering Inspector for the South Coast Air Quality Management District in one of my working incarnations. SCAQMD was a regional agency which covered Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties in Southern California, so I saw my share of smog up close. BTW, even though "I'm here to help" is an oxymoron from a government agency, I DID try to help operators avoid entanglements. Since my rate of "Violation Notices" was not up to the "quota" (I preferred to give "Notices to Comply" instead, and gave specific instructions on how to do that cost effectively), my performance reports were consistently low, lower than those that gave out "Violation Notices" like candy, and eventually led to my frustration and seeking employment elsewhere.

    Let me give you an example of what I mean by mismanagement. SCAQMD regs for refineries required the reduction of air pollutants from parts per million to parts per billion. Meanwhile, Diesel Trucks were traveling up and down LA freeways gagging out particulate pollutants (mostly lead and sulfur) that you could actually SEE in the exhaust, much more, obviously, than ppm.

    So here we were, telling refinery operators to achieve minimal reductions, "OR ELSE", while those trucks at the same time were blowing out much more substantial and harmful pollutants and very lightly regulated in comparison. What's wrong with that picture?

    Of course, the SCAQMD's answer was that they were not responsible for regulating mobile sources. The classic "not my job" response. Saying "not my job" to a refinery operator when they brought up the issue, which they DID quite often because reducing pollutants infinitesimally cost them millions of dollars (refitting a flare, for example), was an uncomfortably inadequate answer. And that was another reason why I left . . . I couldn't provide an answer that passed the laugh test.

    Hence my dim view of government regulation efforts and my questions on "WHO" etc.

    (I don't discount the need to reduce pollutants from refineries, for example, but let's get the right priorities at least. Diesel Trucks in LA contribute to smog much more than refineries in that basin.)

    In my youth, I was an idealistic sort. But after seeing first hand how the system worked, I soon wised up.
    BJ

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

  7. #17
    User BobJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Last Seen
    01-02-13 @ 08:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    You seem to have missed the point entirely. Perhaps my fault for not being clear. This is not about "Green" energy, it is about Lockheed Martin (Big, really Big, defense contractor) receiving huge amounts of money to make sure that Energy monies and taxes grow in the pockets and wallets of the status quo of Big Money. It is an overt manifestation of hijacking Renewable Energy Government monies to make sure Big Money makes more money off of small money voters. Renewable is most efficient when applied locally on end user homes. Why not spend the Renewable Energy monies in that area for research. For example, a low cost inverter triggered by existing AC input to continually keep its output in phase with the existing AC electricity. A low cost no-energy-use housing program to set an example for minimal energy consumption without degradation of life styles. People don't seem to realioze that they are being snookered by the Energy Corporations and their Distribution monopoly..
    OK . . . before I make a jackass out of myself again by missing your point entirely, let me see if I get it now.

    You object to Lockheed Martin receiving huge amounts of money from the government for research benefiting large power companies, while not benefiting the end user at all? I'm guessing by "Big Money" you mean power companies.

    If I have that right, I agree.

    But you also make reference to "Renewable Energy government monies". By that do you mean the government should be in the business of providing money to Renewable Energy sources or just that they are already anyway (IOW, that's the reality, not necessarily the way it "should" be)?

    I ask that because you went on to say, "Why not spend the Renewable Energy monies in that area for research." That makes it seem like you are saying these "Renewable Energy government monies" are proper and the government SHOULD indeed be in the biz of providing money to Renewable Energy sources.

    Now if you're talking about the taxes the government collects on energy transmission and sale, and if you're saying the government should turn around and invest THAT money into Renewable Energy, then that may be a different story than the government just willy-nilly taking money out of the tax revenue general fund and putting THAT into Renewable Energy. Sorry for being so dense, but can you give me some clarification on that: where does the "Renewable Energy government money" come from? Of course, the government can always use "creative accounting", and we'll never know where the money actually came from.

    Regardless of where it comes from (since it is in reality already being spent), are you saying that it should be spent on research for the end user instead? That's what I'm understanding.

    Before I go off on a tangent again and embarrass myself, I need to know if my understandings are correct.

    Sorry again for being so "Renewable Energy government monies" challenged.
    BJ

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

  8. #18
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,621

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by BobJam View Post
    I assume this is the "conundrum" you're talking about, i.e. WHO in the government chooses the investment.

    Don't mean to box you into a corner, but any current candidates in the current administration? Since you said there "HAS" to be, that automatically means there "HAS" to be someone selected. And whoever that person would be in the current administration would also have to render a judgment on WHAT is the "public good".

    Again, I don't mean to be abrasive or coy, but your statement is based on the presumption that there IS someone in the government capable of doing what you posit. I don't believe there is anyone in government even CLOSE to that.

    While I don't necessarily disagree with your statements about smog, I think the current efforts to reduce it are completely mismanaged.

    I was an Air Quality Engineering Inspector for the South Coast Air Quality Management District in one of my working incarnations. SCAQMD was a regional agency which covered Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties in Southern California, so I saw my share of smog up close. BTW, even though "I'm here to help" is an oxymoron from a government agency, I DID try to help operators avoid entanglements. Since my rate of "Violation Notices" was not up to the "quota" (I preferred to give "Notices to Comply" instead, and gave specific instructions on how to do that cost effectively), my performance reports were consistently low, lower than those that gave out "Violation Notices" like candy, and eventually led to my frustration and seeking employment elsewhere.

    Let me give you an example of what I mean by mismanagement. SCAQMD regs for refineries required the reduction of air pollutants from parts per million to parts per billion. Meanwhile, Diesel Trucks were traveling up and down LA freeways gagging out particulate pollutants (mostly lead and sulfur) that you could actually SEE in the exhaust, much more, obviously, than ppm.

    So here we were, telling refinery operators to achieve minimal reductions, "OR ELSE", while those trucks at the same time were blowing out much more substantial and harmful pollutants and very lightly regulated in comparison. What's wrong with that picture?

    Of course, the SCAQMD's answer was that they were not responsible for regulating mobile sources. The classic "not my job" response. Saying "not my job" to a refinery operator when they brought up the issue, which they DID quite often because reducing pollutants infinitesimally cost them millions of dollars (refitting a flare, for example), was an uncomfortably inadequate answer. And that was another reason why I left . . . I couldn't provide an answer that passed the laugh test.

    Hence my dim view of government regulation efforts and my questions on "WHO" etc.

    (I don't discount the need to reduce pollutants from refineries, for example, but let's get the right priorities at least. Diesel Trucks in LA contribute to smog much more than refineries in that basin.)

    In my youth, I was an idealistic sort. But after seeing first hand how the system worked, I soon wised up.
    I think you read WAY too much into my comments. Im not a fan of government spending. Im also not a fan of nasty air and water. I think if we all just wait for industry to develop cleaner resources then they will wait til we are out of oil and coal. Now...Im FINE with coal and oil...just think we NEED better, more efficient, and more affordable alternative fuel means.

  9. #19
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,621

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I never fly into any big cities, so I save that much pollution and energy waste. Perhaps rather than try to find the next magic energy bullet, a decade (or so) before its natural time, we just don't fly (monthly) in smog belching, noise pollution causing aircraft.
    Wouldst that I did not need to fly so much. But not flying as much is not really going to be a long term solution.

  10. #20
    User BobJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Last Seen
    01-02-13 @ 08:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    I think the government is trying to speed up the natural selection process.
    So are you saying that government messing with the Renewable Energy biz is a legitimate function of government?

    While some may view it as a "necessary" function, there's a big difference between "necessary" and "legitimate".
    BJ

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •