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 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Is this Corporate Welfare?

  1. #1
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Is this Corporate Welfare?

    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?


  2. #2
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Since Sandia Labs is testing to develop COMMERCIAL applications of Solar, I am incensed. Truly angry. Solar power is most efficient on local homes and local homes represent individual taxpayers and voters. I see the taxpayers and voters as those who should get the returns on taxpayer dollars, not BIG CORPORATE. This is an attempt to support the existing Centralized Distribution Network for Energy and that represents the very wealthy of America at the expense of the least wealthy. This will assure that the wealthy owners of Distribution Network continue to get a small percentage of all energies sold. The gov'ts will also continue to get their taxes on the energies sold. I would prefer to see gov't monies benefit gov't taxpayers that actually vote, not "Fictitious Entities," and that is the legal description of any Corporation. We keep subsidizing energy at the Corporate level instead of at the end-user level. We, the people, are the end user. We, the people, should be the recipient of gov't subsidy, not Lockheed Martin.

  3. #3
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,553

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    It is far worse than corporate welfare, while the stated purpose was to provide "expertise" (personnel and a test environment?), the implementation seems to have started by building prototypes of the actual systems, not forcing the "testee" to do so at their own expense. This is simply "green" pork. Imagine the gov't building coal, natural gas or nuclear power stations and then "giving advice" to private companies that include the design details so that they may simply copy them and then profit from them. If "efficiency testing" of "non-green" automobiles, involved first designing and building them at taxpayer expense then we the sheeple would object, but it seems that "green" things are way too cool to pass up.
    “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

  4. #4
    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
    I see this as Renewable Energy monies being hijacked to maintain the status quo.
    Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify? (Example, perhaps?)

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Renewable Energy is most efficient when utulized locally, downhome, on individual taxpayers domiciles.
    Right now that may be true, but if it ever becomes profitable on a larger scale (unlikely but possible), that may no longer be uniquely true.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Is this Corporate Welfare?
    You mean is BHO subsidizing his cronies in the "Green" energy biz? Yes, I think so.

    I was involved in Landfill-Gas-to-Energy (LFGE) projects at one time. That's essentially "alternate energy", and certainly "green". Basically, it's collecting methane generated in landfills and selling it directly or using it to fire turbines to generate electricity.

    You'll often see this advertised by your local trash company as "We provide the energy to power 500 homes". That's marketing BS, cosmetic only. It's a loser, like most alternate energy projects right now. The reason large corporations like Waste Management do it is because it provides intangible good will (which they can show on the books as an asset). As I said, it's cosmetic and only makes them look "green". In reality it's a loser, and large corporations only do it because it gives them that good will intangible asset.

    Anyway, my point in bringing up LFGE is that there was never any government subsidization via research into what LFGE methods were efficient. There WAS government subsidization in the form of "tax credits", but that was a backhanded method of subsidization and pretty much made the ROI on these projects break even at best.

    I don't know of any current government subsidization of LFGE projects like these articles discuss for Solar. Consequently, this leads me to believe that BHO is picking winners and losers in green energy . . . something the government has absolutely no business doing.

    The free market will determine winners and losers . . . and so far all have been losers to some degree.

    BHO's advertised reasoning is that these things need to be kickstarted, and it's proper for government to do the kickstarting. IOW, government picks the winners and losers. That, to me, is indeed corporate welfare.

    Henry Ford didn't have that kind of kickstarting . . . he kickstarted the biz himself. The oil industry, in the mid-1800's didn't have government kickstarting . . . it kickstarted itself!

    Would BHO have subsidized buggy whip manufacturers? Probably so, especially since they could have been viewed as "green".
    BJ

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

  5. #5
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,618

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    I think it depends on the outcome. If the project involves bringing down costs and making Solar Power more locally and readily available and more cost efficient, then I am not altogether opposed to investing in the projects. However if at the end of the day nothing changes and we are just giving money away to a company to run tests...then yes...it is inappropriate.

  6. #6
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-04-17 @ 04:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,186
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by BobJam View Post
    Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify? (Example, perhaps?)

    Right now that may be true, but if it ever becomes profitable on a larger scale (unlikely but possible), that may no longer be uniquely true.

    You mean is BHO subsidizing his cronies in the "Green" energy biz? Yes, I think so.

    I was involved in Landfill-Gas-to-Energy (LFGE) projects at one time. That's essentially "alternate energy", and certainly "green". Basically, it's collecting methane generated in landfills and selling it directly or using it to fire turbines to generate electricity.

    You'll often see this advertised by your local trash company as "We provide the energy to power 500 homes". That's marketing BS, cosmetic only. It's a loser, like most alternate energy projects right now. The reason large corporations like Waste Management do it is because it provides intangible good will (which they can show on the books as an asset). As I said, it's cosmetic and only makes them look "green". In reality it's a loser, and large corporations only do it because it gives them that good will intangible asset.

    Anyway, my point in bringing up LFGE is that there was never any government subsidization via research into what LFGE methods were efficient. There WAS government subsidization in the form of "tax credits", but that was a backhanded method of subsidization and pretty much made the ROI on these projects break even at best.

    I don't know of any current government subsidization of LFGE projects like these articles discuss for Solar. Consequently, this leads me to believe that BHO is picking winners and losers in green energy . . . something the government has absolutely no business doing.

    The free market will determine winners and losers . . . and so far all have been losers to some degree.

    BHO's advertised reasoning is that these things need to be kickstarted, and it's proper for government to do the kickstarting. IOW, government picks the winners and losers. That, to me, is indeed corporate welfare.

    Henry Ford didn't have that kind of kickstarting . . . he kickstarted the biz himself. The oil industry, in the mid-1800's didn't have government kickstarting . . . it kickstarted itself!

    Would BHO have subsidized buggy whip manufacturers? Probably so, especially since they could have been viewed as "green".
    Rockefeller and Ford may have revolutionized they're industries but it took time and I think the government is trying to speed up the natural selection process. There probably will eventually be an alternative energy source greater than petroleum based though at the rate of current development it may be later than sooner. The environment and economies may not do well from a delay if it can be sped up.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  7. #7
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by BobJam View Post
    Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify? (Example, perhaps?)

    Right now that may be true, but if it ever becomes profitable on a larger scale (unlikely but possible), that may no longer be uniquely true.

    You mean is BHO subsidizing his cronies in the "Green" energy biz? Yes, I think so.

    I was involved in Landfill-Gas-to-Energy (LFGE) projects at one time. That's essentially "alternate energy", and certainly "green". Basically, it's collecting methane generated in landfills and selling it directly or using it to fire turbines to generate electricity.

    You'll often see this advertised by your local trash company as "We provide the energy to power 500 homes". That's marketing BS, cosmetic only. It's a loser, like most alternate energy projects right now. The reason large corporations like Waste Management do it is because it provides intangible good will (which they can show on the books as an asset). As I said, it's cosmetic and only makes them look "green". In reality it's a loser, and large corporations only do it because it gives them that good will intangible asset.

    Anyway, my point in bringing up LFGE is that there was never any government subsidization via research into what LFGE methods were efficient. There WAS government subsidization in the form of "tax credits", but that was a backhanded method of subsidization and pretty much made the ROI on these projects break even at best.

    I don't know of any current government subsidization of LFGE projects like these articles discuss for Solar. Consequently, this leads me to believe that BHO is picking winners and losers in green energy . . . something the government has absolutely no business doing.

    The free market will determine winners and losers . . . and so far all have been losers to some degree.

    BHO's advertised reasoning is that these things need to be kickstarted, and it's proper for government to do the kickstarting. IOW, government picks the winners and losers. That, to me, is indeed corporate welfare.

    Henry Ford didn't have that kind of kickstarting . . . he kickstarted the biz himself. The oil industry, in the mid-1800's didn't have government kickstarting . . . it kickstarted itself!

    Would BHO have subsidized buggy whip manufacturers? Probably so, especially since they could have been viewed as "green".
    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..

  8. #8
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Is this Corporate Welfare?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I think it depends on the outcome. If the project involves bringing down costs and making Solar Power more locally and readily available and more cost efficient, then I am not altogether opposed to investing in the projects. However if at the end of the day nothing changes and we are just giving money away to a company to run tests...then yes...it is inappropriate.
    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.

  9. #9
    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
    I think it depends on the outcome.
    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.)

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    If the project involves bringing down costs and making Solar Power more locally and readily available and more cost efficient, then I am not altogether opposed to investing in the projects
    Government investment with MY taxes? Or private investment with stockholder money?

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    However if at the end of the day nothing changes
    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.
    BJ

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

  10. #10
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    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..
    I agree with you in the short-term. I still have faith that the long-term gain will be that people can be more off the grid at their homes just to take line loads off the grid for increased supply as we move away from gasoline toward electric without having to retrofit the entire North American powergrid in a shorter time frame. My guess is that what will happen is that energy companies will get a bigger chunk on the front side but eventually places like China will make it much more affordable for Joe Six Pack.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •