McCain missed all 8 votes on energy legislation

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by volinbham

It certainly isn't a major bill on energy given the content. It extends some previously authorized tax credits and alters some other tax code. Hard to view this a comprehensive, or highly significant. If the energy issue truly is the greatest issue we face, this bill is embarrassingly weak in addressing the issue. Any of these provisions could be tacked onto a bill that would make a real difference.

apparently it's enough to put 2,000 jobs on hold in McCain's backyard. and to discourage a Chinese company from making a serious investment in solar manufacturing here.

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by allvol123

But why should someone let that stop them from writing some idiotic article in a major newspaper that makes people think McCain really doesn't care about energy.

because the truth is that the bill actually matters. acting like it's supposed to be a panacea is disingenuous and hides the fact that something other than alternative energy is fueling this. (pun intended)

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by allvol123

Can you figure out the riddle there in your own post?

You mean the answer to my rhetorical question?

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by TennNC

tell me.

I can tell you from some very painful experience that tax credits are a very weak incentive relative to other measures available to the congress. They do help and can be useful, but most who do get them tend to sell them to companies who actually turn profits (see, the researchers and types using these credits typically don't make profit so the tax credits are of exactly 0 use to them) and they sell them for anywhere from $0.30 to $0.85 on the dollar for their value.

Let's say I get a $1 million tax credit. That tax credit allows me to reduce my profit by its face value, or $1 million. If I'm in a 25% tax bracket, then the value of that tax credit, if fully redeemable is $250K. Given that most tax credits have limitations on the amount that can be taken in any single year, I can actually only use the tax credit over several years, further reducing the value.

Given all the pain involved in actually applying for, earning and maintaining eligibility for the credits, many simply decide that they're too painful for the actual value.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by TennNC

because the truth is that the bill actually matters. acting like it's supposed to be a panacea is disingenuous and hides the fact that something other than alternative energy is fueling this. (pun intended)

1) No it doesn't
2) If it did, Obama doesn't care either.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by TennNC

You mean the answer to my rhetorical question?

You asked where the bs was. Above that, you asked why we would not do everything possible to harness our resources. Get why the bill is bs?

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

I can tell you from some very painful experience that tax credits are a very weak incentive relative to other measures available to the congress. They do help and can be useful, but most who do get them tend to sell them to companies who actually turn profits (see, the researchers and types using these credits typically don't make profit so the tax credits are of exactly 0 use to them) and they sell them for anywhere from $0.30 to $0.85 on the dollar for their value.

Let's say I get a $1 million tax credit. That tax credit allows me to reduce my profit by its face value, or $1 million. If I'm in a 25% tax bracket, then the value of that tax credit, if fully redeemable is $250K. Given that most tax credits have limitations on the amount that can be taken in any single year, I can actually only use the tax credit over several years, further reducing the value.

Given all the pain involved in actually applying for, earning and maintaining eligibility for the credits, many simply decide that they're too painful for the actual value.

I appreciate the explanation. what should we make of the two examples friedman gives of companies putting their investments on hold b/c of the stalled credits?

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by TennNC

I appreciate the explanation. what should we make of the two examples friedman gives of companies putting their investments on hold b/c of the stalled credits?

you should probably understand that the deals are not very good and likely HAVE TO have the credits to be viable projects because they can't raise enough money otherwise.

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by allvol123

You asked where the bs was. Above that, you asked why we would not do everything possible to harness our resources. Get why the bill is bs?

saying yes to renewing one aspect does not equal saying no to every other option. it's like saying that fulmer doesn't care about a passing game b/c he's out recruiting a running back. unless, of course, the quarterback feels his numbers are going to slip if you bring in a stud rb and starts pressing fulmer not to go after said stud rb.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by TennNC

saying yes to renewing one aspect does not equal saying no to every other option. it's like saying that fulmer doesn't care about a passing game b/c he's out recruiting a running back. unless, of course, the quarterback feels his numbers are going to slip if you bring in a stud rb and starts pressing fulmer not to go after said stud rb.

but again, you're acting like missing this bill was failure to recruit Manning when it was more comparable to leaving the water boy back for a scrimmage trip.

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

you should probably understand that the deals are not very good and likely HAVE TO have the credits to be viable projects because they can't raise enough money otherwise.

if that's true, then how do we kickstart alternate energy sources? how do we make nuclear, wind, solar, etc. more viable? b/c depending on oil doesn't paint a pretty picture.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by TennNC

saying yes to renewing one aspect does not equal saying no to every other option. it's like saying that fulmer doesn't care about a passing game b/c he's out recruiting a running back. unless, of course, the quarterback feels his numbers are going to slip if you bring in a stud rb and starts pressing fulmer not to go after said stud rb.

This bill is not doing everything and doesn't even come close to doing the most sensible thing. You know, secure the natural resource that we currently rely so heavily on. This other pie in the sky stuff you guys are banking on is great if it happens. Until then, we better secure what we currently use.

[TennNC]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

but again, you're acting like missing this bill was failure to recruit Manning when it was more comparable to leaving the water boy back for a scrimmage trip.

that's one perspective.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by TennNC

apparently it's enough to put 2,000 jobs on hold in McCain's backyard. and to discourage a Chinese company from making a serious investment in solar manufacturing here.

If these are the primary consequences then it is clearly not an important bill on energy.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by TennNC

if that's true, then how do we kickstart alternate energy sources? how do we make nuclear, wind, solar, etc. more viable? b/c depending on oil doesn't paint a pretty picture.

we need to figure out how to get the oil companies to do it themselves or let the free markets figure it out, which they tend to do.

There is a lot of BigOil venture capital chasing solutions out there today, but you're not going to hear about it because of the competitive nature of that business.