YOU LOVE TO SEE IT: America’s Largest Solar Project Comes Online. MAGA soils diapers.

QP! said:
LIES.

I listed pages of different layers of subsidies. Not just one or two types you pick out to cherry pick.







that you, Terry read the above and stick your fingers in your ears and say 'not listening... not listening... those do not count as subsidies when i could post AGAIN, 30 more links from some of the biggest think tank groups (not leftist) ALL OF WHICH identify the ISSUE of Oil and Gas subsidies, but you, Terry say 'Nope, no such thing', shows how empty and vacuous you are.


There is simply NO DENYING that world wide Oil and Gas subsidies and Auto subsidies and bailouts have been amongst the biggest 'takers of government money'.

You are stupid beyond help on this issue.
Click to expand...

Yep, same old stitck... Those are like 90% accounting techniques allowed to corporations with some industry specific ones tossed in that are used for figuring out their taxes.

sub·si·dy
[ˈsəbsədē]
NOUN
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive:
"a farm subsidy" · "the rail service now operates without subsidy"
a sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest:

They aren't "subsidies." Subsidies are things like the government giving a corporation a pile of money to build charging stations, or giving an EV manufacturer a grant to produce more vehicles. Giving buyers a $7500, what amounts to gift, when they buy an EV is a subsidy.

Taking a deduction on taxes for depreciation of an asset isn't a fucking subsidy.

As usual, the radical Leftist writers of those articles--like some Humpty Dumpty--change the meaning of words to suit their purpose. Well, other than in Alice in Wonderland, a fiction, words don't get to mean whatever you think they should mean. They have set meanings, and in this case the vast majority of what you call oil and gas subsidies are not subsidies, they are tax deductions and other allowed business write offs and exemptions that virtually all corporations get to make.

You also make the same argument that takes this beyond the US. What other nations do isn't the argument here. We're talking about the US government and what they subsidize.

We've been over this before and you were full of shit then, and you are full of shit now.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, because you still want solar and wind and that means expensive electricity.

BTW Massachusetts pays about .28 a KWH while Arizona pays about .14 a KWH

https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/

So, more green energy means less green in your pocket.
Click to expand...

You swallowed Trump's Big Lie so why should we believe anything you say about electricity. Your credibility sucks, terry.
you were full of shit then, and you are full of shit now.

tenor.gif
 
Joe Capitalist said:
You swallowed Trump's Big Lie so why should we believe anything you say about electricity. Your credibility sucks, terry.
you were full of shit then, and you are full of shit now.

tenor.gif
Click to expand...

Prove my earlier math wrong asshole. Solar is grotesquely expensive and unreliable as a generation source. Oh, and this has ZERO to do with Trump.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yep, same old stitck... Those are like 90% accounting techniques allowed to corporations with some industry specific ones tossed in that are used for figuring out their taxes.

sub·si·dy
[ˈsəbsədē]
NOUN
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive:
"a farm subsidy" · "the rail service now operates without subsidy"
a sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest:

They aren't "subsidies." Subsidies are things like the government giving a corporation a pile of money to build charging stations, or giving an EV manufacturer a grant to produce more vehicles. Giving buyers a $7500, what amounts to gift, when they buy an EV is a subsidy.

Taking a deduction on taxes for depreciation of an asset isn't a fucking subsidy.

As usual, the radical Leftist writers of those articles--like some Humpty Dumpty--change the meaning of words to suit their purpose. Well, other than in Alice in Wonderland, a fiction, words don't get to mean whatever you think they should mean. They have set meanings, and in this case the vast majority of what you call oil and gas subsidies are not subsidies, they are tax deductions and other allowed business write offs and exemptions that virtually all corporations get to make.

You also make the same argument that takes this beyond the US. What other nations do isn't the argument here. We're talking about the US government and what they subsidize.

We've been over this before and you were full of shit then, and you are full of shit now.
Click to expand...

What about governments giving businesses a discount on land prices to the market prices?

is that a subsidy Terry?
 
QP! said:
What about governments giving businesses a discount on land prices to the market prices?

is that a subsidy Terry?
Click to expand...

No, because real estate is worth what you pay of it at the time of purchase. So, unless the government sold it for say a dollar an acre, that doesn't fly.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, because real estate is worth what you pay of it at the time of purchase. So, unless the government sold it for say a dollar an acre, that doesn't fly.
Click to expand...

WHAT?

Government land is citizen land.

Are you saying if the market value for land currently that the government owns somewhere it billions upon billions of dollars, that the government is about to sell and that money then goes into the coffers as an offset to the debt they have piled up, saving taxpayers a lot of money...

And instead a corporation comes along and says 'hey you have been sitting on that land for over a 100 years and it was worth 100 times less then. Sell it to me for that price as it will save my corporation a ton of money on land we need, that we can then use for other things'.


Your position is it is ok and fine and NOT a subsidy to that company?

Is that what you are saying Terry?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
...
sub·si·dy
[ˈsəbsədē]
NOUN
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive:
"a farm subsidy" · "the rail service now operates without subsidy"
a sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest:
...
Click to expand...

Also can you give me a citation for where you took this definition from as subsidies are much more than just cash handed over. I suspect you picked on short part of the definition while ignoring all the other parts that do not serve you.

Here is a much fuller definition:

What Is a Subsidy?

A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks). The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.




What Is the Difference Between Direct and Indirect Subsidies?
Direct subsidies are those that involve an actual payment of funds toward a particular individual, group, or industry. Indirect subsidies are those that do not hold a predetermined monetary value or involve actual cash outlays. These can include activities such as price reductions for required goods or services that can be government-supported.

...

The Bottom Line
A subsidy given to an individual, business, or institution—usually by the government—can be direct or indirect. They can assist struggling industries, encourage new developments, and promote a social good or policy. Sometimes by helping one sector or group in the economy, they hurt another group, such as a subsidy that helps farmers but increases food prices for consumers. Or they can fail economically but achieve cultural or political goals.
Click to expand...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Prove my earlier math wrong asshole. Solar is grotesquely expensive and unreliable as a generation source. Oh, and this has ZERO to do with Trump.
Click to expand...
My Brother and His wife were very high level engineers for the power company . She did her thesis on wind and solar power generation. You are correct it is the most expensive and least reliable form of electricity by a wide margin.
 
QP! said:
WHAT?

Government land is citizen land.

Are you saying if the market value for land currently that the government owns somewhere it billions upon billions of dollars, that the government is about to sell and that money then goes into the coffers as an offset to the debt they have piled up, saving taxpayers a lot of money...

And instead a corporation comes along and says 'hey you have been sitting on that land for over a 100 years and it was worth 100 times less then. Sell it to me for that price as it will save my corporation a ton of money on land we need, that we can then use for other things'.


Your position is it is ok and fine and NOT a subsidy to that company?

Is that what you are saying Terry?
Click to expand...

The government leases and sells land they own all the time. What rock do you live under to not know that?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The government leases and sells land they own all the time. What rock do you live under to not know that?
Click to expand...

Nice garbage post Terry.

NOT ONCE have i said or suggested that govt does not sell land nor have you or i discussed that.


What WE ARE discussing is your claim that government selling land at a discount to market prices to a corporation is a subsidy to that corporation?


Let me phrase me it more clearly since you said used the date the govt ACQUIRED the land as some seeming point of value.


TERRY - If the govt has owned certain lands (Taxpayer lands) for decades or over one hundred years, and they sell or lease it to corporations below market rates, denying taxpayers that additional revenue that would have been gained at market rates, IS THAT A SUBSIDY TO THE CORPORATION?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not being a MAGA, I don't give a shit. Now, answer the question posed earlier and stop dodging it.
Click to expand...
^^^
LOL, fucking ironic for the guy playing dodgeball and lying and pretending any one was discussing whether the gov't sells land or not and the question was not instead about 'whether the government selling it at significant discounts qualifies as a subsidy or not'.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not being a MAGA, I don't give a shit. Now, answer the question posed earlier and stop dodging it.
Click to expand...

THE WORLD’S ENERGY SUPPLY JUST HIT AN ‘IMMENSE’ MILESTONE THAT WAS 40 YEARS IN THE MAKING: ‘THIS IS AN ENORMOUS MOMENT’

The achievement is great news for both individuals and the environment.

by Erin Feiger*/*February 5, 2024
A major clean energy milestone was reached ahead of its expected timeline, and it’s been 40 years in the making.
Electrek reported that the capacity of global installed wind power reached 1 terawatt in June and that it will likely reach 2 terawatts before the end of this decade.*
The 40-year benchmark used by The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) dates back to the late 1970s when Danish engineers like Henrik Stiesdal — who established the basis for the modern wind turbine — experimented with designs referred to as “The Danish Concept,” and that is the foundation of today’s global wind industry.
Wind energy has been steadily growing for decades — it currently accounts for more than 6% of global electricity — and the GWEC credits recently completed wind power projects in China, the U.S., Europe, and Morocco for bumping the capacity across the 1 terawatt threshold.
Global energy consumption is more than 17 terawatts, with the U.S. accounting for around 16% of that, per the Energy Information Administration. A single terawatt could generate more than one-third of the energy needed to power the entire U.S.*

This achievement is great news for both individuals and the environment. The U.S. Department of Energy reports that almost 40% of emissions of all harmful, planet-warming pollution come from burning dirty energy to create the energy we use every day.
Globally, wind energy replaces dirty energy sources like oil, coal, and natural gas and plays a crucial role in decarbonizing the global power system and helping the world achieve net-zero energy goals.*

Individually, wind can be used as a clean energy source to power homes, saving consumers money and protecting them from price fluctuations of dirty energy sources.*
In an announcement of the milestone, the GWEC’s CEO, Ben Backwell, said, “This is an enormous moment for the wind industry, but it is also a moment to celebrate for the whole world. This landmark achievement shows the path to a clean energy future is here.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top