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 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Is this Corporate Welfare?

  1. #21
    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
    Im not a fan of government spending
    Got that part. Don't think I ever said you were a "fan", just that you viewed it as a necessity, and I concluded that based on your "HAS to" statement. Did I misinterpret that ("read WAY too much" into "HAS to"?). Do you think that government spending is a necessity?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Im also not a fan of nasty air and water
    Got that, didn't I?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    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.
    Seems here again you are saying that government "NEEDS" to step in and do some spending. Same question then, WHO in government is going to decide what to "develop"?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    just think we NEED better, more efficient, and more affordable alternative fuel means.
    I take it I should have interpreted "HAS to" as "NEED"? Sometimes they mean the same thing . . . sometimes not. Example of not: "You NEED TO brush your teeth" is not the same as "You HAVE TO brush your teeth."

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I think you read WAY too much into my comments
    Was it that "HAVE TO" thing versus the "NEED TO" thing?
    BJ

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

  2. #22
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,717

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by BobJam View Post
    Got that part. Don't think I ever said you were a "fan", just that you viewed it as a necessity, and I concluded that based on your "HAS to" statement. Did I misinterpret that ("read WAY too much" into "HAS to"?). Do you think that government spending is a necessity?

    Got that, didn't I?

    Seems here again you are saying that government "NEEDS" to step in and do some spending. Same question then, WHO in government is going to decide what to "develop"?

    I take it I should have interpreted "HAS to" as "NEED"? Sometimes they mean the same thing . . . sometimes not. Example of not: "You NEED TO brush your teeth" is not the same as "You HAVE TO brush your teeth."

    Was it that "HAVE TO" thing versus the "NEED TO" thing?
    I think it is definitely a NEED TO...like...a NEED TO get in a fight with someone. First the OP, now me. I see why you picked your avie...its appropriate.

    No one is advocating for the wholesale engagement of government in the private sector development of green energy. Read what is written.

  3. #23
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by BobJam View Post
    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.
    " Originally Posted by DaveFaganThere 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.

    VANCE MACK
    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.""

    I'm thinking that investment in battery technology would be a lot more sensible. The rewards are better than the punishment because we are attempting to address Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide with the same investment. Lockheed Martin renews our investment in WAR. The total package must be a plan to help the citizen. We, the people, as one of those quaint documents refers to us.

  4. #24
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Sandia Lab building solar test centers across US :: WRAL.com

    Sandia Lab building five solar test centers, including one in Denver - The Denver Post

    "The Sandia National Laboratory is building test centers in Albuquerque, Denver, Las Vegas, Orlando, Fla., and Burlington, Vt., the Albuquerque Journal reported (ABQJournal Online Sandia Labs expands, upgrades solar R&D).
    "The centers are designed to not only provide independent assessments of commercial systems, but to do that in multiple locations and climates," Sandia solar group member Jennifer Granata said."

    I see this as gov't subsidization of Big Corporate.
    I see this as Renewable Energy monies being hijacked to maintain the status quo.
    Renewable Energy is most efficient when utulized locally, downhome, on individual taxpayers domiciles.
    Is this Corporate Welfare?
    I see this as a needed incentive to make us less dependent on oil. The oil companies get subsidies from the government despite record breaking profits. I see THAT as corporate welfare.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  5. #25
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,717

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    I'm thinking that investment in battery technology would be a lot more sensible. The rewards are better than the punishment because we are attempting to address Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide with the same investment. Lockheed Martin renews our investment in WAR. The total package must be a plan to help the citizen. We, the people, as one of those quaint documents refers to us.
    Offering money to taxpayers to purchase systems is STILL nothing but a gift to industry. The systems need to be better and more efficient. With as long as we have been working on this technology, it should be.

  6. #26
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek View Post
    I see this as a needed incentive to make us less dependent on oil. The oil companies get subsidies from the government despite record breaking profits. I see THAT as corporate welfare.

    I'm stating that maintaining the status quo of Big Energy is two steps backwards, whether it is fossil fuel entering the Energy Distribution Network and collecting its proportionate share or Lockheed Martin making sure that it doesn't change to a De-Centralized Distribution Network. Why don't people realize that our distribution network is as much a problem to Global Warming as fossil fuels. The inertia generated attempting to dis-lodge the status quo of Big Money is considerable. After all, who owns the politicians? How many do you own? That is where I see this struggle and it seems truly important to me. Ergo, you get may rants, although I try to be logical and thoughtful and produce insight from many years ofd solar research. That research tells me that the status quo is the problem and offers no hope for a solution. I always go out on a limb and offer a solution. Otherwise, I would just be bitching.

  7. #27
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,307

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Offering money to taxpayers to purchase systems is STILL nothing but a gift to industry. The systems need to be better and more efficient. With as long as we have been working on this technology, it should be.
    That is the point. No money has been spent to do renewable energy research. It has all been spent trying to get any renewable energy that is generated in to the existing Centralized Diostribution Network. That is my complaint and the object of the post. To get people to realize that.

  8. #28
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,717

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    That is the point. No money has been spent to do renewable energy research. It has all been spent trying to get any renewable energy that is generated in to the existing Centralized Diostribution Network. That is my complaint and the object of the post. To get people to realize that.
    And you DID see my comments that I could see it as justified IF it was going to R and D...otherwise...no...correct?

  9. #29
    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?

    @VanceMack,

    Re: your post #22.

    Sometimes debate crosses the line and can be perceived as a "fight". Was not my intention, but apparently that was the way it looked and it looks like I belabored the topic with you and did indeed go over the line. Was genuinely curious.

    Apologize, and only excuse is that I'm new here and still trying to get the flavor of the players. Plus, I have been on boards that are echo chambers and are devoid of reasonable and civil debate, so perhaps I'm a little too anxious for that "debating".

    The remark about the avatar was a bit hostile.

    In any case, apologize again and will withdraw..

    @DaveFagan,

    Hope you didn't perceive that I was "fighting" with you. As I said above, was just genuinely curious. Thanks for the patient answers and am getting a better handle on where individuals stand.
    BJ

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

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Riding a tapir
    Last Seen
    01-27-13 @ 10:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Sandia Lab building solar test centers across US :: WRAL.com

    Sandia Lab building five solar test centers, including one in Denver - The Denver Post

    "The Sandia National Laboratory is building test centers in Albuquerque, Denver, Las Vegas, Orlando, Fla., and Burlington, Vt., the Albuquerque Journal reported (ABQJournal Online Sandia Labs expands, upgrades solar R&D).
    "The centers are designed to not only provide independent assessments of commercial systems, but to do that in multiple locations and climates," Sandia solar group member Jennifer Granata said."

    I see this as gov't subsidization of Big Corporate.
    It is.

    I see this as Renewable Energy monies being hijacked to maintain the status quo.
    I can't fathom why you would think that. It's just the government providing some funds to help make us relevant in the global renewables market. It has little or no impact on the status quo.

    Renewable Energy is most efficient when utulized locally, downhome, on individual taxpayers domiciles.
    I suppose you're right about this, but it can be equally as effective in large scale generation.

    Is this Corporate Welfare?
    I don't think you understand corporate welfare. It's a process where the government artificially keeps private corporations afloat. This, well, is not.

Page 3 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
  •