Republicans Are Determined To Stop Renewable Energy

Are you a liberal? Allowing people to keep their tax money is a conservative thing, IMHO. I guess by that, you only take the standard deduction on your income tax, and no other deductions. I know I take every tax deduction I am legally entited to.

 

You couldn't be further off base. Most of the wind farms exist in red states so I don't know where you get this idea that states have a vested interest in making sure people use oil. Very simplistic thinking. I also think we're a long ways before people are returning power to the grid, at least to the point of over compensating for the power drawn during times of no sunlight or wind. I think that many are fond of over estimating how much power these technologies actually produce.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm a husband and a father of four. I have every obligation to take whatever credit or advantage I can. What does this have to do with taxpayers being forced to pay for you to install your damn solar panels?

[

 

Giving tax incentives to those who choose to produce their own clean efficient energy is certainly not stealing from others or advancing state power in any way. Anyone in the US who wishes to could take advantage of the modest incentive. As far as "artificial help" allowing certain industries to thrive, the oil companies are the kings. Most of their endeavors take place on government lands and off shore waters and they are getting sweet deals on leases along with huge tax breaks from the whores in congress who are paid to represent us but sell us out at every turn.

 

I doubt you can make the case that government is subsidizing oil. Here, why don't you educate yourself on what oil companies pay in taxes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/which-megacorps-pay-megataxes/

And I love how you on the Left love to talk about "tax incentives" to hide the fact that you're stealing people's money to pay for other people's lifestyle choices, certainly not in line with what people think government should be doing. But my question was about your name. Are you just trying to pull a rouse with a name that says you value freedom while you really value statism and the continual erosion of freedom? I'm just trying to make sense of it and can't tell if you're lying or just confused.

 

The guy installing a solar system (Jack4freedom) also has that obligation to take whatever credit and advantage he can. You are forcing the taxpayers to pay part of the upkeep for your kids. Same argument. Conservatives are supposed to be for tax breaks. The less taxes the better, IMHO.

(In other words, you're a hypocrite. You think the tax breaks you get are good, but the tax breaks others get aren't good. I support all tax breaks.)

 

The government has subsidized oil companies for decades and whatever they pay in taxes is a pittance compared to their huge profit margins. I am certainly in favor of freedom and against statism. Nothing in any of my posts suggests otherwise. I believe that the IRS and the Federal Reserve should both be abolished. However giving back some of the what the IRS annually extorts from US citizens by way of incentives seems to be a step in the right direction. You are the one who is confused champ. The US government is owned by international corporations and bank swindlers. If you support them, then you are the statist.

 

Since you aren't a conservative, I couldn't expect you to understand. Conservatives don't believe in tax subsidies, artificially propping up industries instead of allowing them to sink or swim in the real marketplace like every other company. I know you might be confused because you call yourself a "card carrying Republican" and probably voted for Bush and thought it was a good thing when Bush created subsidies for ethanol production. Perhaps because you conflate conservative with republican, you think that Bush was doing a "conservative" thing, but he wasn't.

So let's set the record straight. Conservatives believe in across the board tax relief for all income levels and we believe that those not paying any taxes should start. Since you intimated that I'm inconsistent by taking tax credits for my family, I'll point out that I too would have to start paying taxes. I don't believe a country can last long where half the population is skating on taxes. Conservatives don't believe in subsidizing industries which queers the free market by giving some companies unfair advantage. Taxes shouldn't be used as a weapon against political opponents or a tool for social engineering, it should be used to sustain the basic functions of government and nothing else. That's what we believe.

 

After reading that I went no further. If you really believe that, I can't have any kind of intelligent conversation with you, particularly after providing a link to better educate you on oil companies and what they contribute in taxes. I'm sorry, but I can't dumb myself down enough to discuss this any further with you.

 

Yet, you believe in the government subsidizing your children, and your house, and I'm sure your medical bills...... (I know I do)

Corn into ethanol was and is a silly thing (with the exception of bourbon ) The only reason Bush supported that was Iowa, and in fact, the only reason anybody was stupid enough for that was Iowa. (Iowa caucuses being critical to primary wins). Yes, I supported Bush, because the other choice was Gore or Kerry. I supported Bush against Dukakis and Clinton/Perot, and Reagan before that. I even voted for Dole, McCain and Romney.

I enjoy the way you read into my views, even though you have no clue.

Also, conservatives are not opposed to tax subsidies. We just view the money as going back to the rightful people.

Again, I'm assuming you take a mortgage deduction (social engineering). I'm assuming you take deductions for your kids (social engineering). You're a hypocrite. You are using social engineering money yourself. (I am, but I'm not going to criticize someone for taking deductions for something that makes sense to him. I didn't criticize people who took "Cash for Clunkers" and a lot of other dubious programs of social engineering.)
(I'm a Fair Tax supporter myself, but I support any kind of deduction that takes money out of the federal government until then)

 

Government doesn't subsidize my children, house, or medical bills. Only a Leftist thinks that tax relief is subsidization, which goes to your warped way of thinking. Subsidization occurs when expenses are paid for by government, and the only point in which that's remotely true is my VA benefits for having served this country, and I won't even entertain some twit telling me I don't deserve that.

Corporate welfare is what's silly and it's in stark contrast with what conservatives believe.

I'm so insightful it scares you.

You are not part of "we". That's one. Two, that's tax relief, not tax subsidies. Unless somebody is on welfare, they aren't being subsidized by paying lower taxes.

None of that is social engineering, clearly you don't understand the term. Moreover, I know you don't have a family or you would understand that a family man must avail himself of any advantage that helps his family. Because I support changes in the tax code that would harm me, but be better for the country, I prove that I am NOT a hypocrite. Add that word to the list of words you don't understand.

 

So you're saying that oil interests do not control politics in the Oil Patch? hehe

 

I'm saying that there's no conspiracy to force people to use oil. Nor are the oil companies suppressing electric car technology, nor many of the other outlandish theories I hear by those who hate oil.

Only kooks believe that. "Flamboyant" kooks.

 

Of course they do. I have two kids and a wife. We benefited from lower taxes due to having two kids. That is subsidization of my family, just like the guy with the solar panels was subsidized. I think you deserve every dime. That said, I think he does as well.

Yes, including Mr. Solar panel.

Of course it's social engineering. Social engineering is using the power of the government's purse to make social changes that you approve of. Tax benefits for having a mortgage is social engineering--it is using the government to promote the idea of owning your own house. Tax benefits for having children is also social engineering--it is using the government to promote the idea of having children. Again, you basically think tax breaks that help you (like the mortgage and the kids) are not social engineering (which they clearly are), while alternative energy is social engineering. All are social engineering. Any time the government gives a tax break it is social engineering (and anytime they tax something new it's social engineering).

And, I do have a family with two boys. I don't have any problem with taking the subsidy for taking care of them, but I recognize that it's social engineering, and it's social engineering I agree with. I do think it's a good thing to encourage people to have kids. I think the mortgage deduction is also good social engineering.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, amazing. I agree with you 100% on something.

 

You're a card carrying Republican like I am, after all. We're bound to agree on a few things.

 

That's not what I asked.

 

what you beleive and what conservatives practice are two toatlly different things then.

 

Taxcutter says:
I knew hundreds of people with photovoltaic solar, thermal solar, and small wind turbines.
Of all these people, maybe 3 in a hundred came to despise the things, and got rid of them as soon a possible. Big complaint: 1970 PV cells lost their ability to make electricity from sunlight after a while and had to be replaced. Solar thermal equipment always seemed to leak.

You must be one of the lucky ones.

 

Don't be so flamboyant.

 

You're making a mockery in the name of reason and logic. If the links were meaningless you would have proved they were. Claiming they are is worthless. Not to mention, again, you are admitting government invented the internet because the very people who left and went to the private sector were the government workers who invented the idea to begin with. The very people you refer to who left for the private sector to do more have nothing to do with the actual gov. workers who invented the idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

 

The very fact you think that gives government the credit for inventing the internet betrays your slavish devotion to all things government. Sing the praises of government. All honor and power and glory be to the state! The state saved me and it can save you too, just believe in it and confess all your transgressions against it. Renounce self reliance, and put your trust in government and it will come into your heart and transform you. The state did all these things for you, and all it asks in return is your love and devotion....and all your worldly goods too.

Praise the State!
Praise the State!
Praise the State!

Amen.

 

The problem I see with this, is your unwillingness to review all the facts in the entire link I posted. Your silliness and bitter ranting are becoming all too obvious that you are getting boxed in with this argument. I challenge you to pick out the parts of the article I posted that are false and itemize those parts of the link that are making false claims, with your own proof that the government wasn't the first. Don't just tell me the links are meaningless, show me. That link points out in great detail the trail of activity and who was responsible for the computer and the internet getting off the ground. If it hadn't been for government, it would have never happened. Your sour grape attitude doesn't change those facts, unless you can prove I'm wrong with your own reliable information.

 

Now you're full of crap claiming I haven't presented my own argument. I posted specific people, places, and events that gave rise to the predecessor of the internet. I did my due diligence. I also said that your links are crap because I've seen the arguments before, heaping praises on the Arpanet project while ignoring it's limitations and refusal to advance beyond the creation of a few established networks. I addressed all of that, and if it wasn't to your satisfaction, too bad. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you're badgering me after I've offered a thorough riposte. I'm just going to offer you this link that tells the true story of how the internet came to be. Enjoy! http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518

 

Lol! One more time wasting time here with your denial of all the information. What your link describes are things that came later. That is a cherry picked link leaving out the important information that doesn't tell the whole story. The foundation for those later things was made possible by the government.

Researchers working directly for the government and at university labs founded by the govt., were some of the "FIRST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET" to think up a worldwide network, and they were the "ONLY" people at that time working on building such a thing according to the link I posted. Now, I read your link, and no where does it mention that fact, or dispute that the events I described, did not occur. That's how I know you are full of crap. Your link should have followed up and disputed those very key facts, or at least it should have given a full account from the very, very beginning as to exactly how all this came about, but it never did. It only injected information where the private sector began its work. It never went all the way back to the historical foundation which I described, or mentioned any other time frame within the context of your link. They either did not know about it, or purposely left it out, because it would have been pointless to create this link falsely claiming it was not govt. which got the internet off the ground first.

 

Exactly. It's classic rent seeking by the oil and coal companies to prevent competition.