Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Here’s Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), giving a perfect description of why the PTC should be extended, from a floor speech on Wednesday:

"I’ve championed the wind energy tax credit as a way to provide a level playing field for a very clean, renewable resource. As a result, wind energy has become more efficient and cost-effective. The cost of wind energy has declined by 90% since the 1980’s. Wind has accounted for 35% of all new American electric generation in the last five years. Wind has already provided 20% of the electric generation in my state of Iowa. It supports as many as 5,000 good-paying jobs in our state. As a result of the tax incentive, the wind energy has actually created new manufacturing jobs in the United States. Today 60% of the wind turbines’ value is now produced in the United States, compared with just 25% six years ago. There are now 400 facilities building wind components in 43 states. That is why a bill in the House of Representatives to extend the wind energy production tax credit has 80 cosponsors, including 18 Republicans.

If we fail to extend the incentive, thousands of jobs will be lost in wind manufacturing industry. Unemployment remains high at 8.30%. Why would Congress exacerbate the unemployment in our country by failing to extend this successful incentive?"

But, if you think this sounds like someone who would actually vote to extend the PTC, you’d be wrong. Grassley ignored his very own logic and revealed his true loyalties: Big Oil over clean energy.

This nonsense was bipartisan, too. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) had this to say about the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act:
My vote today was based largely on concerns over extending tax credits for a number of renewable technologies. Government should avoid picking winners and losers, and should allow the marketplace to work.

Wrap your head around that for a second. Senator Webb had two choices: Support Big Oil, or support clean energy. For all his tortured reasoning about allowing the marketplace to work, Webb can’t deny that he voted for $24 billion in tax subsidies to Big Oil companies.

kalm wrote:I'll save a few of you some time:

1) Yes, it's from that liberal rag Think Progress.
2) And yes, as the article suggests, the Democrats are hypocritical too.

None the less, how is this not government picking winners and losers. How is it not a job killer as was one of the complaints surrounding the fight against the Keystone Pipeline?

Here’s Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), giving a perfect description of why the PTC should be extended, from a floor speech on Wednesday:

"I’ve championed the wind energy tax credit as a way to provide a level playing field for a very clean, renewable resource. As a result, wind energy has become more efficient and cost-effective. The cost of wind energy has declined by 90% since the 1980’s. Wind has accounted for 35% of all new American electric generation in the last five years. Wind has already provided 20% of the electric generation in my state of Iowa. It supports as many as 5,000 good-paying jobs in our state. As a result of the tax incentive, the wind energy has actually created new manufacturing jobs in the United States. Today 60% of the wind turbines’ value is now produced in the United States, compared with just 25% six years ago. There are now 400 facilities building wind components in 43 states. That is why a bill in the House of Representatives to extend the wind energy production tax credit has 80 cosponsors, including 18 Republicans.

If we fail to extend the incentive, thousands of jobs will be lost in wind manufacturing industry. Unemployment remains high at 8.30%. Why would Congress exacerbate the unemployment in our country by failing to extend this successful incentive?"

But, if you think this sounds like someone who would actually vote to extend the PTC, you’d be wrong. Grassley ignored his very own logic and revealed his true loyalties: Big Oil over clean energy.

This nonsense was bipartisan, too. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) had this to say about the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act:
My vote today was based largely on concerns over extending tax credits for a number of renewable technologies. Government should avoid picking winners and losers, and should allow the marketplace to work.

Wrap your head around that for a second. Senator Webb had two choices: Support Big Oil, or support clean energy. For all his tortured reasoning about allowing the marketplace to work, Webb can’t deny that he voted for $24 billion in tax subsidies to Big Oil companies.

Senators Who Voted To Protect Oil Tax Breaks Received $23,582,500 From Big Oil
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/ ... m-big-oil/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:I'll save a few of you some time:

1) Yes, it's from that liberal rag Think Progress.
2) And yes, as the article suggests, the Democrats are hypocritical too.

None the less, how is this not government picking winners and losers. How is it not a job killer as was one of the complaints surrounding the fight against the Keystone Pipeline?




Senators Who Voted To Protect Oil Tax Breaks Received $23,582,500 From Big Oil
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/ ... m-big-oil/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The tax breaks should go away. But we need a tax overhaul so all the breaks go away, not just picking and chosing for campaign purposes.

kalm wrote: Senators Who Voted To Protect Oil Tax Breaks Received $23,582,500 From Big Oil
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/ ... m-big-oil/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:

The tax breaks should go away. But we need a tax overhaul so all the breaks go away, not just picking and chosing for campaign purposes.

Sssssshhhhhh. I'm fishing for unprincipled responses here.

bluehenbillk wrote:

kalm wrote: Senators Who Voted To Protect Oil Tax Breaks Received $23,582,500 From Big Oil
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/ ... m-big-oil/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's the sad truth with America.

Obama doesn't run the country, in the way things REALLY work, Big Oil through it's lobby and political contribution power have had more to do with guiding America's energy policies and because of that America's foreign policies than ANY president has for decades.

This is why we drive gasoline-powered cars that only a get a few more miles to the gallon than they did on average 30 years ago and pay basically $4 per gallon just for the privilege. If that doesn't make your hole hurt it's only because you're using excessive lube...also an oil product.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Rutherford B. Hayes (A REPUBLICAN!) wrote LONG ago:


"The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few....It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations."

*For brain-dead younger Conks like SuperHornet, BDJUNK and Cluckie, R.B. Hayes was a Republican President of the United States and a damned good one. Further, he wrote:

"In church it occurred to me that it is time for the public to hear that the giant evil and danger in this country, the danger which transcends all others, is the vast wealth owned or controlled by a few persons. Money is power. In Congress, in state legislatures, in city councils, in the courts, in the political conventions, in the press, in the pulpit, in the circles of the educated and the talented, its influence is growing greater and greater. Excessive wealth in the hands of the few means extreme poverty, ignorance, vice, and wretchedness as the lot of the many. It is not yet time to debate about the remedy. The previous question is as to the danger—the evil. Let the people be fully informed and convinced as to the evil. Let them earnestly seek the remedy and it will be found. Fully to know the evil is the first step towards reaching its eradication. Henry George is strong when he portrays the rottenness of the present system. We are, to say the least, not yet ready for his remedy. We may reach and remove the difficulty by changes in the laws regulating corporations, descents of property, wills, trusts, taxation, and a host of other important interests, not omitting lands and other property"


Learn, oh ignorant Conks, from your past.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Rutherford B. Hayes (A REPUBLICAN!) wrote LONG ago:


"The real difficulty is with the vast wealth and power in the hands of the few....It is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations."

*For brain-dead younger Conks like SuperHornet, BDJUNK and Cluckie, R.B. Hayes was a Republican President of the United States and a damned good one. Further, he wrote:

"In church it occurred to me that it is time for the public to hear that the giant evil and danger in this country, the danger which transcends all others, is the vast wealth owned or controlled by a few persons. Money is power. In Congress, in state legislatures, in city councils, in the courts, in the political conventions, in the press, in the pulpit, in the circles of the educated and the talented, its influence is growing greater and greater. Excessive wealth in the hands of the few means extreme poverty, ignorance, vice, and wretchedness as the lot of the many. It is not yet time to debate about the remedy. The previous question is as to the danger—the evil. Let the people be fully informed and convinced as to the evil. Let them earnestly seek the remedy and it will be found. Fully to know the evil is the first step towards reaching its eradication. Henry George is strong when he portrays the rottenness of the present system. We are, to say the least, not yet ready for his remedy. We may reach and remove the difficulty by changes in the laws regulating corporations, descents of property, wills, trusts, taxation, and a host of other important interests, not omitting lands and other property"


Learn, oh ignorant Conks, from your past.

GannonFan wrote:Let's also remember that Hayes came from a world before any of the Industrial Revolution-era improvements came into play - he predates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act even. He lived in a very different world than we were are today and from his time to now there are literally thousands of things we've done to improve the world we live in to mitigate the issues of income inequality. Heck, we were still on the gold standard back in Hayes's day. It was a zero-sum world and what he said then mattered a lot then. It's not a zero-sum world anymore. To be poor back in the 1870's meant working 7 days a week from the age of 6 in hellacious conditions, scrounging every day just to find enough food for half of your family to eat, until you either died at your workplace or got injured and died in the streets. Being poor today means owning your own house (albeit, one of moderate size), getting free schooling until you're 18, getting government assistant to have food on the table, having a car, having medical care, and a host of other things. Sure, being poor even today would suck, but there's a difference between the life and death sucking of Rutherford's world and the one of today.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Let's also remember that Hayes came from a world before any of the Industrial Revolution-era improvements came into play - he predates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act even. He lived in a very different world than we were are today and from his time to now there are literally thousands of things we've done to improve the world we live in to mitigate the issues of income inequality. Heck, we were still on the gold standard back in Hayes's day. It was a zero-sum world and what he said then mattered a lot then. It's not a zero-sum world anymore. To be poor back in the 1870's meant working 7 days a week from the age of 6 in hellacious conditions, scrounging every day just to find enough food for half of your family to eat, until you either died at your workplace or got injured and died in the streets. Being poor today means owning your own house (albeit, one of moderate size), getting free schooling until you're 18, getting government assistant to have food on the table, having a car, having medical care, and a host of other things. Sure, being poor even today would suck, but there's a difference between the life and death sucking of Rutherford's world and the one of today.

Yes, it's all relative. But entrenched power and monopoly are bad regardless of the era. The founders knew this.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Regardless, Hayes was a visionary. He'd gag in the current environment. He'd-a challenged Cheney to a duel over Haliburton's corporate welfare! And won!!!!

GannonFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Regardless, Hayes was a visionary. He'd gag in the current environment. He'd-a challenged Cheney to a duel over Haliburton's corporate welfare! And won!!!!

Come on, you would've hated Hayes - the guy didn't drink. What would you talk about?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Come on, you would've hated Hayes - the guy didn't drink. What would you talk about?

Hairy Elizabethan Era pussy.

GannonFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Hairy Elizabethan Era pussy.

Elizabethan Era? You do realize Hayes lived in the 19th century and not the 16th, correct? Although, I'm sure the style may not have differed too much in that time.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Come on, you would've hated Hayes - the guy didn't drink. What would you talk about?

Hairy Elizabethan Era pussy.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yes, it's all relative. But entrenched power and monopoly are bad regardless of the era. The founders knew this.

I don't disagree. I disagree to the extent that entrenched power and monopoly are as dominant as they were then and have the same impact.