It's Time To Stop The Blood-Sucking, Deadbeat Welfare Recipients (Corporate, That Is)

I am so "up" for the idea of focusing on corporate welfare, via cellphone pictures or whatever it takes. Excellent article.

Yeah, here's hoping that a groundswell movement starts. Maybe someone will listen.....

Let's start with oil depletion allowances, then farm subsidies.
But there are literally HUNDREDS of other ones, each with their own high-bucks lobby.
Most of them are small compared to the above two, but taken as a whole they add up to a big number. Politicians are afraid to deny the lobbyists because they will fund an opponent who will do their bidding, run attack ads, etc.
It's easier to just go along with each one. And once they are passed by Congress, it's almost impossible to get rid of them...those same well-funded lobbyists and their backers are still out there, ready to pounce....

And don't forget the revolving door where the polititians go to work for the lobbyists in high-paying jobs after they leave Congress, Bert.

Yep. It's all part of the cozy little quid-pro-quo arrangement between Big Money and their paid-for flacks in Congress.

Don't forget alternative energy subsidies.

And ethanol. Ties more energy to make it, than it's worth, and pushes the price of corn up.

Yeah, the fossil fuel lobbies HATE those alternate energy subsidies, Dan.
They level the playing field with the massively subsidized fossil fuel industry.
Even worse is the "subsidy" that industry gets in deferred environmental costs....from pollution of the ecosphere...land, air and water.
They pay NOTHING for that. If those costs were factored in, gasoline, coal and natural gas would not be competitive TODAY with solar or wind power, even in their infancy as new technologies that are not yet down the cost/volume curve.
Right, Char. Ethanol subsidies are a huge handout to big agribusiness...and a poor energy investment in a number of ways.

Really Bert?
So how much energy does it take to build solar panels? To turn silica into solar cells to collect the sun's energy is a very heat intensive process.
And who do we buy our solar panels from? The Chinese because they sell them to us cheap!
But of course the Chinese use dirty coal and coal fired power plants that do NOT scrub the particulate pollutants from the exhaust to provide energy to those solar cell production plants....And then the hazardous wastes from the processes in those plants are dumped on convenient farm lands which can no longer grow crops.
So are you willing to "factor in" those costs into alternative energies?

Yeah, really, Dan.
It takes a LOT of energy to produce a solar panel, but once it is in place, it collects the sun's energy FOREVER. No further pollution of the environment is required. Unlike fossil fuels which continue to give their 'gifts' FOREVER.
Why do we buy solar panels from the Chinese? Because the "Free Trade" agreements that Republicans love...that export our union jobs overseas so that things like solar panels can be imported at slave labor prices.
That is what you guys want...to bash the unions, export the jobs.
YOU are the problem!
Global free trade doesn't work, Dan.
Unless your goal is to kill labor unions.

It was President Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA into law Bert! Is your memory so short?

Are YOU willing to factor those costs in to alternative energy production Bert?

Quit dodging questions!

And while you are at it...Are you willing to factor in the millions of acres of tropical rain forests that are demolished every year to grow biofuels?

I was talking about the exporting of jobs to China and the Far East, which has nothing to do with NAFTA.
All the costs, both long term and short term should be factored into any energy production system. Most of the costs of fossil fuel production are deferred for future generations to worry about.
What questions have I dodged, slippery Dan? :>)
I am not in favor of biofuels in general, except those which are generated from waste materials that would produce the same methane and CO2 if left to decay naturally.

FYI Bert,
Mexico was importing parts from China to be assembled in Mexico for delivery to the U.S. until the U.S. paid them to stop/reduce, that money was supposed to stop in 2008.

something tells me that even though you claim you are willing to hold alternatives to the same standards as you do fossil fuels....It ain't going to happen.

The fact remains that the use of fossil fuels is damaging to the earth in many ways. That is well documented, even though many people like you gloss over that damage and deny much of it in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Future generations will pay the price for our irresposible and selfish actions.
I will say it one more time and maybe you will get it.
The manufacturing of solar panels or wind turbines or geothermal facilities takes energy, but once they are in place, the energy they produce is clean...no products of combustion, no oil spills, no contamination of aquifers with toxic chemicals, no toxic runoff from strip mining into lakes and streams.
Furthermore, solar and wind power...and even biofuel from waste biomass...are RENEWABLE. We are not depleting them as we are fossil fuels, forcing more expensive and risky extraction processes with their continually-escalating energy costs and potential for ecological disaster.

EtOH is a net return nowadays (tens of percent), just not as much as other ventures.

A start for reviewing comparisons may be here...http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/index.htm

I would venture that there are many cases in which such ethanol production is inefficient.

So, in all of these sorts of arguments it is a matter of degree and priority.

"EtOH"

Ethanol ?

Bert,
Fossil fuels do what renewable can't do, and until the magic pill is discovered we haven't seen a renewable source that can replace fossil fuels.

Don't waste your time, Bert. Brick walls don't respond to facts or reason.....

For the corn-ethanol industry, the 2008 report from above cites a 2.3/1 return on energy input. That is, if you invest 1 gallon of ethanol into the production process, you might expect 2 gallons out. Lot's of other expenses though.

Fossil fuel extraction can be as much as 100:1. At some point as fossil fuel becomes more costly and others less so, those numbers will meet.

Yes, EtOH is ethanol, MeOH is methanol, BuOH is butanol and so on.

Jim,
Science and research Jim...It's all about the science and research.

Dan...your view is...1/0...simplistic. Don't bother with renewables because they are too expensive (so was gasoline when you had to buy it at the drug store in gallon bottles) or intermittent (so don't even use it when it IS available).
The process of weaning us off fossil fuels...which even Dubya said we should do...will be a long gradual process.
You don't want us to take the first steps down that road.
You...and the fossil fuel industry.

esteban,

"2.3/1"

Is it that much? I haven't looked for a long time but I thought it was lower than that.

Not a big fan of corn ethanol, I think sugar cane would be a better source.

Bert,
Can you provide a quote from me saying what you just claimed I said?

You oppose subsidies for alternative energy sources, knowing full well that they cannot compete with the hundred-year-old established fossil fuel industry. You never mention the environmental problems associated with fossil fuel extraction and use. You have NEVER responded to my repeated statements about the CONTINUING damage from fossil fuels, while clean renewable sources like solar and wind do not. I said you gloss over that damage, but in truth...you ignore it.
What conclusion should I draw from that? I think it is reasonable to conclude that you oppose alternate energy development...or want it studied to death...like the tobacco companies wanted health risks from smoking studied ad infinitum...and that is consistent with your attitude toward climate change...sort of combination of denial and deferral.
You accuse me of evading questions, but you are the champion evader, Dan...slickly sliding by my questions and statements to make your tired points.
As Jim said...I am wasting my time talking to you...again.

"You oppose subsidies for alternative energy sources,"

No I don't and I never posted any such thing. You on the other hand would remove those subsidies from fossil fuels based (partially) on the harm they do yet ignore similar harm done in the production of renewables.

" You never mention the environmental problems associated"

See the above statement.

" I think it is reasonable to conclude that you oppose alternate energy development"

No Bert,
We've had enough discussions on the subject for you to know my position on renewables you reacted to being challenged, your accusations was not a conclusion it was an attack it's what you progressives do!

The energy return is 2.3/1 for corn ethanol in the USDA 2008 report.

I am skeptical of that number also, but it is probably close. I reckon that the ratio is larger now with improved techniques.

I do concur that corn is maybe a silly thing to make ethanol from unless you like bourbon. But, fact is it is increasingly economical as techniques progress.

Wind and hydro power have the highest returns on energy invested...just limited in scope.

There is one source of energy for us...nuclear ...that is the sun and small amounts on earth.

I agree concerning old Sol, but I'll have to disagree with you on wind, even the experts suggest that you plant three times as many turbines as needed and even then the power produced is usually lacking.

Usually.

Deftly deployed, wind and hydro are the best; capacity is the problem.

Gigapeople presents challenges.

Sigh. Still expecting our congress people to take money out of their pockets, when they can stick their hands in yours?

You know me, Ron, The eternal optimist! LOL.

We've gone way past an issue of blame, since no one is an innocent here. Subsidies do nothing for the economy other than present a misleading picture to a gulible public, while furthering corruption at the publics expense. The plain fact of the matter is no self-governing population needs or should ever have condoned the formation of a governing body with absolute authority in perpetuity. It is not now or was ever necessary to begin with, if anyone had ever paid attention to history. Without limits to authority no version of freedom can exist.

How about the ballot box, yoshi?

What about the ballot box Jim? If less than 50% of the population votes, which seems to be the general consensus at present the ballot box becomes no more than a manipulative tool of political parties. To my mind citizenship should not be a birthright, rather a privilege accorded through an application process with mandated legal obligations and responsibilities.

If the populace is too unconcerned to be informed and to actively participate in their government, they get the government that they deserve.....

To my mind citizenship should not be a birthright, rather a privilege accorded through an application process with mandated legal obligations and responsibilities.

Yoshi, This is an interesting proposition, but I submit that those crafting the rules would have even more concentrated power if it were done, don't you think? In the end, it would fail, I think for that reason.

To that end I would disagree in so far as a well informed and knowlegeble public (manditory legal standards of responsibility and obligations) would be far more difficult to decieve or manipulate than the present pervasive and uninformed ignorance allows.

Let me illistrate with this example assuming my proposition was activated: The specific responsibilities and obligations of citizenship I'll leave open for the moment and move towards the consequences of non-compliance.
Citizenship compliance would encompass all rights and privleges according to constitutional amendments, However non-compliance would afford only resident status with none of the rights or privileges afforded by virture of registered citizenship.
Rights such as the right bare arms, the right vote, the right to work without permit, the right to public supported care = medical services, housing, education, constitutional protections, foodstamps etc... to name a few. Granted this seems harsh but then I don't want to continue shouldering the burden for perpetuating ignorance and laziness with endless tax dollars (public expense).

The other aspect regarding compliance to the legal obligations and responsibilities of citizenship could include a prohibition against utilizing offshore numbered accounts and exporting business interests for tax purposes or cost effective structuring etc... If we cannot control human nature than we must develop the tools to control its negative influence and impact.

Yoshi, I don't think normal work can produce enough government and enforcement to micro manage to this level the populations of the world or even a state. What you are talking about is not freedom, but slavery. The reason the US has succeeded so far, is because the people themselves were informed, engaged and moral. Take that away, and no matter how many perfect rules or ideas, you can't legislate morality. Those charged with administering the rules play favorites, etc. Crony dominance will repeat in any system, courts and the law can be undermined by those in power at any level, local, state, district and so on. You are seeking utopia, and it will not exist here unless men's hearts are changed, simply because of the amount of energy (cost) to enforce compliance. What do you do with the non compliant, after you take away their privileges?

Yoshi, you are NUTS! Who decides who is intelligent & well informed enough to be a citizen? Maybe we should go back to the not too distant past when Blacks in the South had to be able to guess how many beans were in a jar, or name all of the Presidents from Washington on to vote? Or let's go back a little further, & take the vote away from women. As a class, they were considered to be too ignorant to vote. Then let's go way back to our founding. Why should anyone who is not a land owner be allowed to vote? Your superior attitude is disgusting.

Am I nuts Jim? I must be since all I did was apply a similar methodology to the one being used in America and a few other countries today utlizing a comparable auspicious. By rearranging the dynanics of the social and economic structure which become the present economic disaster. What becomes obvious from this is the economic trend progressing towards globalism is destined to follow the same end game as you and Char have clearly stated. Its much easier to discredit anothers creative highjinx than actually see all the places we excel at ignoring.

I don't think any of y'all are nuts.

I would be interested in the enthusiasm for participation in society that might arise if one made a game of it. Churches do that to some extent.

Do you really think you can overcome those big money interests? Fat chance.

Maybe we can start by demanding a hundred dollars cut from corporate subsidies for every dollar of entitlement cuts.

That would be too FAIR.

Well the corporations wanted to have the same status as human beings. Let's treat them like people and kick them to the curb also. Stinking deadbeats, draining our nations coffers while contributing nothing!

But the corporations need that money to create jobs. Don't worry, it will eventually "Trickle-Down" to us.....

Might if they actually created jobs in America which paid a living wage. They really ought to consider doing so since it would vastly increase their customer base.

They killed the goose that laid the golden egg. No jobs, no consumer spending, which was 70% of our GDP.

Exactly right, Jim.

And they did that to make themselves look more profitable for the quarter. It what happens when you put shareholder value above all else.

I'm currently not able to acces Gather at all on my computer. I won't be commenting much since it is so tedious using my phone.

Jim and Susan, The problem with the dollars of eliminated subsides per cuts in entitlements is that the corps would raise prices to cover the self subsidy loss, and then combined with the entitlement cuts, the two together would exponentially explode poverty. That is the fallacy of going after corps, they always pass the cost on in prices, or they mechanize, or flee. Not as simple as it looks.

Hope you get it straightened out soon, Susan.

You have a point there, Char. Flip a coin: Heads, they win; Tails, we lose.

Especially now, while the race to the bottom will be supported by millions of unemployed workers who MUST work to survive.

Char maybe so but we have the power to boycott those who blatantly fleece us. Look what happened to BOA for instituting the debit card fee. The fallout was horrendous and spilled over onto other banks which also tried that. Ticked off consumers have enormous power, much more so than congress. Saying we shouldn't even try because of what they may do is just caving without a whimper.

Jim, I'm going to have to get a pro to deal with my computer. I haven't the skills or knowledge to do it myself. Fortunately I know two highly skilled young men who can whip my machine back in line.

Susan, Sorry if I sound defeatist, but I saw our country just vote for a party of Socialists, and I do not trust the votes were even fairly counted. I don't think it matters what we do anymore. Too many people have learned to hate and really believe there is a free lunch. Too few are willing to take the time to vote or be informed. I guess I am just too tired to fight anymore. I am glad there are those still trying though, and agree it is the right thing.

I'm "Computer Challenged" too, Susan. I depend on my son & son-in-law to fix my messes, LOL.