The unsustainability of "green" energy

[elektra]

One day green energy might just be more efficient.

You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.

Absolutely. And I hope one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.

But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.

Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.

Defense contractors are not subsidized nor have they ever been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.

Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.

No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.

Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies

How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies

"Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "

Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.

Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.

Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy


This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
"I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
found it to be subatantial"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf

"In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."

But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.

Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.

The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.

Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?

Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?

Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.

Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".

Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.

General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One day green energy might just be more efficient.

You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.

Absolutely. And I hope one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.

But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.

Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.

Defense contractors are not subsidized nor have they ever been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.

Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.

No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.

Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies

How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies

"Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "

Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.

Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.

Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy


This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
"I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
found it to be subatantial"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf

"In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."

But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.

Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.

The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.

Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?

Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?

Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.

Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".

Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.

General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.

But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.

Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.

 

[elektra]

Absolutely. And I hope one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.

But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.

Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.

Defense contractors are not subsidized nor have they ever been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.

Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.

No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.

Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies

How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies

"Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "

Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.

Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.

Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy


This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
"I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
found it to be subatantial"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf

"In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."

But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.

Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.

The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.

Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?

Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?

Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.

Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".

Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.

General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.

But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.

Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.

Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.

Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.

 

[P@triot]

Absolutely. And I hope one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.

But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.

Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.

Defense contractors are not subsidized nor have they ever been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.

Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.

No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.

Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies

How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies

"Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "

Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.

Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.

Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy


This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
"I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
found it to be subatantial"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf

"In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."

But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.

Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.

The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.

Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?

Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?

Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.

Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".

Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.

General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.

But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.

Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.

And they shouldn't. So lets stop it together as an electorate. It's funny, we hear liberals wailing all the time about "corporate welfare" and then celebrate hundreds of billions of dollars in "corporate welfare" to "green" energy.

Nobody should get money from the government. If they earn it as genuine contractors - fine (and no - there is NO reason a "green" energy company would be a contractor for the federal government since the federal government is not responsible for energy).

 

[Wyatt earp]

One day green energy might just be more efficient.

You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.

Absolutely. And I hope one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.

But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.

Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.

Defense contractors are not subsidized nor have they ever been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.

Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.

No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.

Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies

How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies

"Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "

Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.

Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.

Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy


This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
"I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
found it to be subatantial"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf

"In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."

But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.

Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.

The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.

Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?

Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?

Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.

You libs never cease to amaze me

Why do you constantly attack business that pay a living wage , union high paying jobs and Unions that contribute to democrats?



.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.

Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.

Defense contractors are not subsidized nor have they ever been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.

Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.

No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.

Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies

How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies

"Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "

Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.

Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.

Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy


This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
"I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
found it to be subatantial"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf

"In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."

But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.

Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.

The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.

Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?

Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?

Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.

Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".

Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.

General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.

But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.

Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.

Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.

Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.

And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.

 

[elektra]

Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.

Defense contractors are not subsidized nor have they ever been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.

Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.

No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.

Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies

How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies

"Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "

Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.

Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.

Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy


This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
"I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
found it to be subatantial"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf

"In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."

But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.

Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.

The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.

Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?

Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?

Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.

Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".

Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.

General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.

But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.

Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.

Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.

Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.

And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.

I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.

Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.

On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.

I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.

No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.

Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies

How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies

"Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "

Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.

Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.

Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy


This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
"I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
found it to be subatantial"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf

"In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."

But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.

Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.

The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.

Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?

Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?

Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.

Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".

Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.

General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.

But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.

Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.

Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.

Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.

And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.

I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.

Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.

On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.

I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.

My propaganda hey? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this.

I understand that resources are used to make renewable energy, did I say any different? No I did not.
You're just putting me into the basket and saying that everyone in the basket has the same thoughts.

 

[elektra]

Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".

Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.

General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.

But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.

Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.

Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.

Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.

And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.

I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.

Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.

On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.

I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.

My propaganda hey? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this.

I understand that resources are used to make renewable energy, did I say any different? No I did not.
You're just putting me into the basket and saying that everyone in the basket has the same thoughts.

Sure, I did that, you are in a thread about the unsustainablity of green energy, and you seem to be arguing what?

 

[frigidweirdo]

But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.

Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.

Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.

Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.

And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.

I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.

Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.

On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.

I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.

My propaganda hey? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this.

I understand that resources are used to make renewable energy, did I say any different? No I did not.
You're just putting me into the basket and saying that everyone in the basket has the same thoughts.

Sure, I did that, you are in a thread about the unsustainablity of green energy, and you seem to be arguing what?

I seem to be arguing what I argue, and not what you make up that I have argued. That's what.

It's not the first time on this board this has happened, it's not even the 100th time, and it will happen again. Simply because so many partisan people feel comfortable arguing what they know.

 

[elektra]

Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.

Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.

And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.

I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.

Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.

On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.

I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.

My propaganda hey? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this.

I understand that resources are used to make renewable energy, did I say any different? No I did not.
You're just putting me into the basket and saying that everyone in the basket has the same thoughts.

Sure, I did that, you are in a thread about the unsustainablity of green energy, and you seem to be arguing what?

I seem to be arguing what I argue, and not what you make up that I have argued. That's what.

It's not the first time on this board this has happened, it's not even the 100th time, and it will happen again. Simply because so many partisan people feel comfortable arguing what they know.

Your point? I responded to your propaganda about Halliburton and Boeing, I assumed you used that example to justify the Trillions of dollars being and to be spent Renewables.

Renewables use Oil, they increase the demand for Oil, so now Halliburton profits from Green Energy.

So what is your point in a thread about the unsustainability of green energy?

 

[Moonglow]

Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.

and subsidies, along with tax breaks...

 

[frigidweirdo]

And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.

I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.

Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.

On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.

I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.

My propaganda hey? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this.

I understand that resources are used to make renewable energy, did I say any different? No I did not.
You're just putting me into the basket and saying that everyone in the basket has the same thoughts.

Sure, I did that, you are in a thread about the unsustainablity of green energy, and you seem to be arguing what?

I seem to be arguing what I argue, and not what you make up that I have argued. That's what.

It's not the first time on this board this has happened, it's not even the 100th time, and it will happen again. Simply because so many partisan people feel comfortable arguing what they know.

Your point? I responded to your propaganda about Halliburton and Boeing, I assumed you used that example to justify the Trillions of dollars being and to be spent Renewables.

Renewables use Oil, they increase the demand for Oil, so now Halliburton profits from Green Energy.

So what is your point in a thread about the unsustainability of green energy?

My point? If you assume things, you make a fool of yourself.

Propaganda about Boeing and Halliburton? What propaganda? Did I say anything that wasn't true? No I did not. I was asked a question and I replied with the fact and an argument. I know it's shocking, right? Most people on this forum don't bother. And did I expect a sensible reply back? No, did I get one? No.

 

[Moonglow]

You stated that you have to spend a million dollars to get the equivalent of an AAA battery.

Ever heard of portable solar panels? They sell them in the stores, and here in Amarillo, one of those stores is called Battery Joe's.

The panels cost about 25 or 30 bucks, will last for several years, and are capable of fully charging a cell phone or tablet in a few hours.

Some people run their whole house off the grid from solar and wind power, and they usually don't spend more than 10,000 on equipment that they can use for years.

I don't think your argument holds water.

You live in Amarillo texas? Kind of a cool town.


I was reading yesterday about 3d printers that reproduce / mining the moon/ making solar panels to put in earths orbit kind of interesting.



Solar Panels Grown On The Moon Could Power The Earth



.

The city is so neat they still have street walking hookers....

 

[elektra]

My point? If you assume things, you make a fool of yourself.

Propaganda about Boeing and Halliburton? What propaganda? Did I say anything that wasn't true? No I did not. I was asked a question and I replied with the fact and an argument. I know it's shocking, right? Most people on this forum don't bother. And did I expect a sensible reply back? No, did I get one? No.

Your post is pure propaganda, first and foremost, you link to an article? Why? Why not link to the study?

Take Boeing, did they receive bailout assistance? A Federal Loan? Or a Loan Guarantee? Technically speaking, no. But if we read the article we will not know that, you must go to the study, which then begins to paint a very different picture.

If we go to the study, we find that Green Energy is receiving 100's of billions of dollars in subsidies, and grants.

Much different than a loan guarantee that boeing received.

I like this which I found through your original post, why do they say it is not easy to separate money received from contracts? Was much of the money Boeing received from contracts? And of course the study is concentrated on Obama spending, so mentioning Bush seems largely propaganda as well.

Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My point? If you assume things, you make a fool of yourself.

Propaganda about Boeing and Halliburton? What propaganda? Did I say anything that wasn't true? No I did not. I was asked a question and I replied with the fact and an argument. I know it's shocking, right? Most people on this forum don't bother. And did I expect a sensible reply back? No, did I get one? No.

Your post is pure propaganda, first and foremost, you link to an article? Why? Why not link to the study?

Take Boeing, did they receive bailout assistance? A Federal Loan? Or a Loan Guarantee? Technically speaking, no. But if we read the article we will not know that, you must go to the study, which then begins to paint a very different picture.

If we go to the study, we find that Green Energy is receiving 100's of billions of dollars in subsidies, and grants.

Much different than a loan guarantee that boeing received.

I like this which I found through your original post, why do they say it is not easy to separate money received from contracts? Was much of the money Boeing received from contracts? And of course the study is concentrated on Obama spending, so mentioning Bush seems largely propaganda as well.

Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.

Well, if you want to make a case against my case, then fine.

However all you've done is go "It's propaganda". This happens too much on this board, people with short answers that they use simply to brush away any argument.

So if you wish to make a counter argument, go ahead. Otherwise, don't bother.

 

[elektra]

Well, if you want to make a case against my case, then fine.

However all you've done is go "It's propaganda". This happens too much on this board, people with short answers that they use simply to brush away any argument.

So if you wish to make a counter argument, go ahead. Otherwise, don't bother.

You have not made a case, you cut and pasted an article. What is relevant, from your link is they qualify all the pretty pictures with:

Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.

They literally state, that the money they include in "subsidies", is literally money made from "contracts".

Like I said, presented as an article and out of context, it is propaganda. I understand how you do not like that, but as you can see from your link, it is true. Pure propaganda.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, if you want to make a case against my case, then fine.

However all you've done is go "It's propaganda". This happens too much on this board, people with short answers that they use simply to brush away any argument.

So if you wish to make a counter argument, go ahead. Otherwise, don't bother.

You have not made a case, you cut and pasted an article. What is relevant, from your link is they qualify all the pretty pictures with:

Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.

They literally state, that the money they include in "subsidies", is literally money made from "contracts".

Like I said, presented as an article and out of context, it is propaganda. I understand how you do not like that, but as you can see from your link, it is true. Pure propaganda.

You know, I can't be bothered with this pretty nonsense.

 

[elektra]

Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.

You know, I can't be bothered with this pretty nonsense.

You can not be bothered to answer to what is contained in your own link? You simply cherry pick and that is it, even if a quote comes from your link is contrary to your assertion, it is nonsense?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.

You know, I can't be bothered with this pretty nonsense.

You can not be bothered to answer to what is contained in your own link? You simply cherry pick and that is it, even if a quote comes from your link is contrary to your assertion, it is nonsense?

No, I can't be bothered with your nonsense. Your "You haven't made a case" "Your post is pure propaganda", you always seem to start a post with a slightly veiled attack. I'm not doing it, so either go away, or come back when you're going to act like a decent human being.