Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: capital on February 01, 2017, 05:34:46 pm
-
Congressman Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) last night introduced H.J. Res. 46, which seeks to repeal updates to the National Park Service’s “9B” rules. The rules require detailed planning and set safety standards for oil and gas drilling inside the more than 40 national parks that have “split estate” ownership, where the federal government owns the surface but not the subsurface mineral rights. {source} (https://www.npca.org/articles/1462-house-moves-to-encourage-drilling-in-national-parks)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/this-lawmaker-wants-more-drilling-in-national-parks-and-he-just-became-more-powerful/
Consider contacting Rep. Gosar: http://gosar.house.gov/
-
When your worldview features a fundamental contempt for the world you inhabit, this is the kind of thing that results.
-Dave-
-
As a native Texan all my life and my dad working as a Halliburton frac truck driver back in the '60's before frac-ing turned into an earthquake inducing lateral sandblasting affair near underground water supplies, I'ld like to see if that bill offers a better clean up package when all those oil field contractors pull up stakes after the price of oil drops than what we got in Texas with Eagle Ford Shale...
http://kut.org/post/what-do-texas-leftover-oil-gas-wells
It's a mess.
-
The article indicates that Obama, a week before the election in November, unilaterally had the Park manager issue a new regulation that stopped a lot of drilling that had gone on safely for years. This was Obama playing king instead of having Congress and the people decide how this issue should be handled.
The people elected Trump to reverse the overbearing regulation of the government that have hurt jobs and businesses during a period of economic hardship for many including the economy in general. People's economic situation count too as well as the environment. Most Americans want a clean and viable environment as well as a good economy that works for them. Certainly we can do both. The new President and the new Republican Congress will reverse many of the arbitrary regulations of all kinds that have hurt the economy and jobs. Elections have consequences.
-
People's economic situation count too as well as the environment. Most Americans want a clean and viable environment as well as a good economy that works for them. Certainly we can do both.
Can anyone tell me how many jobs and their duration another drilling site brings to rural areas of the US? My posted link tells you it's pretty short and sweet and what's left is a lot of abandoned wells to clean up and empty lodging and support service business buildings.
My dad worked all his life in that kind of economy and his income for our family of six was at Federal poverty line standards. We had to move almost every 3 years to where ever the support service company drill site sent us. I've got a sister living in Alice, Tx., a town where over 200 surrounding Eagle Ford Shale drill sites increased that town's economy to $12 million a year and now has left it with less than half that.
How does one build retirement savings on such a boom/bust economy? When the oil company's drill site gets the oil and caps the well and pulls up stakes, what other jobs are created? There should be some kind of royalty fee paid to the small town who had to invest in support service, road maintenance and infrastructure to help the oil company take the oil from underneath them and then leave.
https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2015/08/17/in-some-texas-oil-towns-this-downturn-feels-more-like-a-bust/
-
Tim, I understand your point. But what would have happened if that job was not available to your dad and family? ? What would have happened then? Not everyone can work in Wall Street.
-
Tim, I understand your point. But what would have happened if that job was not available to your dad and family? ? What would have happened then? Not everyone can work in Wall Street.
Wow! Pretty limited answer with no options for a country that practically invented modern economics. That doesn't make sense.
In the words from one of Trump's tweet..."Sad".
-
Wow! Pretty limited answer with no options for a country that practically invented modern economics. That doesn't make sense.
Innovation and creativity are dirty words to anyone who's view of the world is: the better things get the worse they get. There is no forward vision at work here. Quite the opposite: regressive is the operative mindset. Along with the desire to fully exploit whatever resources we've already identified and invested in. And after those resources are gone? This question isn't asked, much less addressed.
Mind you, I'm not a "stop all drilling & mining" nutter. I merely support an equal if not greater emphasis on developing new resources. But to do so acknowledges not only that the future will be different to the past but that it could possibly be better. This is cognitively/emotionally anathema to our governing ideologues. We must return to their fantasy past, and then stay there.
-Dave-
-
Innovation and creativity are dirty words to anyone who's view of the world is: the better things get the worse they get. There is no forward vision at work here. Quite the opposite: regressive is the operative mindset. Along with the desire to fully exploit whatever resources we've already identified and invested in. And after those resources are gone? This question isn't asked, much less addressed.
Mind you, I'm not a "stop all drilling & mining" nutter. I merely support an equal if not greater emphasis on developing new resources. But to do so acknowledges not only that the future will be different to the past but that it could possibly be better. This is cognitively/emotionally anathema to our governing ideologues. We must return to their fantasy past, and then stay there.
-Dave-
There are all kinds of innovation and creativity at work. Solar and nuclear power, electric cars, etc. There are many entrepreneurs who are willing to invest capital in developing all kinds of alternatives. But it all costs money and investors look for returns. In the meanwhile cheaper oil and gas will remain the mainstay.
When you say you "support an equal or greater emphasis on developing new recourses", how much have you personally invested in these new industries? Have you switched your heating to electric or do you still burn cheaper oil or gas? Do you drive an electric car or hybrid? Have you installed solar panels or are you still on the grid? Have you invested your money in alternative energy companies? Or do you prefer others take the risk and pay the extra costs?
-
...
Solar and nuclear power, electric cars, etc.
...
How many nuclear power stations using modern designs have been approved in the last 20 years? (in the USA)
What course of action has the president set in motion for the EPA?
...
I could go on.
US politics is owned by oil, gas and coal companies and its policies (especially those of the Republican party) are a reflection of exactly that.
For an example of just how corrupt politics in the USA are, look at how hard it has been for an entrepreneur by the name of Elon Musk to sell his cars throughout the USA.
-
You think an electric car will help offset fossil fuel burning this video from "Adam Ruins Everything" series gives some perspective...
https://youtu.be/J-uQD9_OXzs?t=385
-
You think an electric car will help offset fossil fuel burning this video from "Adam Ruins Everything" series gives some perspective...
...
Whether or not it offsets fossil fuel burning is beside the point in this discussion.
The point here is that someone is saying "yay, america, go entrepreneurs!" - innovation is the future. Except that states and companies all over the USA have gone to great lengths to block innovation and entrepreneurship.
Oh, and as for my contribution to this, I live an alternative lifestyle to many of you (and one which some of you would find positively foreign): I've been living car free for 5 years now (my choice.) Pays handsomely let me tell you :)
-
The new President and the new Republican Congress will reverse many of the arbitrary regulations of all kinds that have hurt the economy and jobs.
Excellent. By all means, sacrifice forever the beauty and spirituality of these places for all of us, forever, for the benefit of a few today.
-
Excellent. By all means, sacrifice forever the beauty and spirituality of these places for all of us, for the benefit of a few today.
To put it in perspective for landscape photographers...
... think of your favorite view at Yosemite or Canyonlands or Bryce or ... now put a drilling rig in the middle of the frame and wire fences to keep you out, maybe of where you once used to walk, sit, eat and drink.
The people with the drilling rigs and land rights won't give a sh*t about your precious views that you once treasured and photographed.
-
When you say you "support an equal or greater emphasis on developing new recourses", how much have you personally invested in these new industries? Have you switched your heating to electric or do you still burn cheaper oil or gas? Do you drive an electric car or hybrid? Have you installed solar panels or are you still on the grid? Have you invested your money in alternative energy companies? Or do you prefer others take the risk and pay the extra costs?
Solar panels are in the works for my upcoming "new" house. Heat in the old house is gas. Current car is a diesel, sold as "clean" but quite dirty as it turns out. Thanks, Volkswagen! And I have in fact invested in alternate energy in the past, though currently I have no energy investments at all.
Anyway, my point isn't about what companies may or may not be doing. It's about what drives the folks setting government policy. I don't see anything forward thinking or future oriented about their agenda.
-Dave-
-
Solar panels are in the works for my upcoming "new" house. Heat in the old house is gas. Current car is a diesel, sold as "clean" but quite dirty as it turns out. Thanks, Volkswagen! And I have in fact invested in alternate energy in the past, though currently I have no energy investments at all.
Anyway, my point isn't about what companies may or may not be doing. It's about what drives the folks setting government policy. I don't see anything forward thinking or future oriented about their agenda.
-Dave-
Curious of you're getting a tax subsidy to put in solar panels? If you are, then other tax payers like me are paying for your panels so you can save money. How is that fair?
There's plenty of "forward thinking" for the government. Maybe too many regulations. There has to be a balance. Not everyone can afford solar panels. Oil heating might be the only thing available in a particular community. It cost a lot to install gas lines. Where I live, the residents have to use gas for heating. No oil is allowed. No wood fire places either, only gas, to reduce pollution. People want to breathe clean air and drink unpolluted water. But a balance must be established as people still need to work and live and support their families.
-
People want to breathe clean air and drink unpolluted water. But a balance must be established as people still need to work and live and support their families.
The only balance is we all breathe clean air and drink unpolluted water. There's no compromise here.
Or are you saying we should allow jobs in industries and companies that pollute our air and water just so people have jobs? Here's a balance for ya'. How about these unemployed folks get different jobs or take an alternate career path that doesn't directly or indirectly pollute our air and water?
What other balance is there? I'm not understanding your point, Alan.
-
The only balance is we all breathe clean air and drink unpolluted water. There's no compromise here.
The compromise these days is that the big big money doesn't give a rats r'se about what everyone else wants or needs as long as the dollars for a very few keep rolling in. This greed is obviously beyond sustainable jobs or no jobs.
When all the drinking water is fouled, Trump and his mates will be sipping posh bottled water and looking down their noses at the working class.
Right-wing Jesus will be so proud of them. ;)
-
A crazy post.
Hey, 99% of LuLa visitors are pro protecting National Parks. Drilling, you have got to be joking. Tourism, the world's number two industry "trumps" drilling.
Cheers,
-
I kind of doubt the areas of drilling they're considering in National Parks will be those that impede or are located in high traffic tourism spots. My dad as an oil field supervisor had to travel long hours to get to sites out in the middle of nowhere on mostly leased areas of the King ranch in south Texas. I rode with him on a couple occasions just to see what he did for a living. It's big sky country along the lines of the movie "Giant".
The real problems are the affects of building infrastructure required to get to remote sites on National Park land. Roads have to be plowed and gravel paved, trees removed, nearby lodging built, food provided, etc. And then there is the clean up regardless if the well produces or goes bust.
Drilling sites aren't particularly clean places to work. Believe me. It can also stink of crude oil (smells like motor oil mixed with sewer...it's that bad). But it only smells within the area of the drill site. I wouldn't think in those remote areas they'ld be close enough to campers and hikers.
-
I'm mainly concerned about what drilling will do to underground aquifers considering all the earthquakes in Oklahoma from frac-ing.
Texas has a large amount of springs spread across the state. A massive oil reserve has been found out in the west Texas desert area of Balmorhea which isn't a national park but I think it should be.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/the-future-of-balmorhea/
-
Speaking to the issue of oil companies creating surface contamination:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Chemical-Leak-at-Livermore-Oil-Field-May-Have-Contaminated-Some-Alameda-County-Water-Supplies-353092171.html
The land owner who only has surface rights indicated on TV yesterday that the issue of clean up is still not resolved, and it is now 2017.
-
Curious of you're getting a tax subsidy to put in solar panels?
Too early to say if one will be offered, and it won't make any difference anyway.
But, again, what I will or won't do isn't the issue. What companies are/aren't doing also isn't the issue. What is the outlook of government policymakers? What are their policies intended to accomplish? And I don't mean rhetorical blather but rather nitty-gritty detail. That is the issue.
-Dave-
-
Curious of you're getting a tax subsidy to put in solar panels? If you are, then other tax payers like me are paying for your panels so you can save money. How is that fair?
It's fair because it helps you and your children and their children and everyone else's children breathe unpolluted air on a stable planet.
-
It's fair because it helps you and your children and their children and everyone else's children breathe unpolluted air on a stable planet.
That's just baloney. The tax subsidy you get that other tax payers pay for so you can save utility costs goes into your wallet. Meanwhile the rest of us are paying the full cost for our utility use. No one reimbursed me for paying extra money for low wattage LED bulbs. Why should you get a subsidy and the rest of us don't? Your argument reminds me of Gore who runs around telling everyone to reduce their carbon footprint while he flies around in his own jet burning 1000 gallons of gas an hour. On the other hand, he's at least paying for the gas. With solar panels, poorer people are paying for yours.
-
That's just baloney. The tax subsidy you get that other tax payers pay for so you can save utility costs goes into your wallet. Meanwhile the rest of us are paying the full cost for our utility use. No one reimbursed me for paying extra money for low wattage LED bulbs. Why should you get a subsidy and the rest of us don't? Your argument reminds me of Gore who runs around telling everyone to reduce their carbon footprint while he flies around in his own jet burning 1000 gallons of gas an hour. On the other hand, he's at least paying for the gas. With solar panels, poorer people are paying for yours.
Because that's how taxes work. The government wants to change behaviour, so they use cash. If you're missing out on the subsidy, you're not doing what they want. If you don't drive on roads as much as someone else, they're getting more benefit from taxes that go into roads than you. What's more, by not using the grid (or using less) people with solar are reducing demand for the grid which helps to reduce the price that you pay.
This whole "I don't get any benefit from THAT tax" thing is the real baloney. It's like over here where if you don't vaccinate your kids you don't get the "Child vaccination bonus" from the government, and people complain because they're being "forced" to vaccinate. No, they're being encourage, even coerced, because in the long run it's cheaper for the government and better of the community.
If it affects you so much, get solar...
-
That's just baloney. The tax subsidy you get that other tax payers pay for so you can save utility costs goes into your wallet. Meanwhile the rest of us are paying the full cost for our utility use. No one reimbursed me for paying extra money for low wattage LED bulbs. Why should you get a subsidy and the rest of us don't? Your argument reminds me of Gore who runs around telling everyone to reduce their carbon footprint while he flies around in his own jet burning 1000 gallons of gas an hour. On the other hand, he's at least paying for the gas. With solar panels, poorer people are paying for yours.
Nope. You obviously don't understand how economics and technology work. In the beginning a new technology is typically more expensive than the ones it replaces. As experience accumulates, the product is improved and the efficiency goes up and the price comes down. Without some support in the early days, the technology may not get going, regardless of the ultimate benefits. With suitable support, everybody ends up benefitting. If you want to think in terms of non-linear dynamics, society moves from a locally optimum configuration to a (more) globally optimum configuration.
-
Nope. You obviously don't understand how economics and technology work. In the beginning a new technology is typically more expensive than the ones it replaces. As experience accumulates, the product is improved and the efficiency goes up and the price comes down. Without some support in the early days, the technology may not get going, regardless of the ultimate benefits. With suitable support, everybody ends up benefitting. If you want to think in terms of non-linear dynamics, society moves from a locally optimum configuration to a (more) globally optimum configuration.
And what's more, without the additional solar/and other alternatives to burning fossil fuel, people may not be able to use their Air Conditioning on the hottest days anymore (according to this article (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/us-electric-grid-isnt-ready-to-handle-our-future-climate/)), thanks to global warming trends which cause (not only higher but also) larger fluctuations in temperature.
The future seems to be heading in the direction of more local/home produced energy (and conservation which never hurts), rather than large scale production/pollution. Solar and wind farms may be large scale, but they still face the challenge of fluctuating supply. So also the demand side needs to be addressed, and the losses and vulnerabilities (and sabotage) of energy transportation.
Denial of the need for a multi-faceted approach is naive, at best. Subsidies, while never a good long term solution, can help kick-start something that would otherwise never get off the ground.
While at the same time:
Areas of California sank almost 2 feet in under 2 years amid drought (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/areas-of-california-sank-almost-2-feet-in-under-2-years-amid-drought/)
and
Leading candidate for Trump’s science advisor calls climate change a cult. (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/trumps-science-advisor-candidates-both-question-climate-change/)
What a mess ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Nope. You obviously don't understand how economics and technology work. In the beginning a new technology is typically more expensive than the ones it replaces. As experience accumulates, the product is improved and the efficiency goes up and the price comes down. Without some support in the early days, the technology may not get going, regardless of the ultimate benefits. With suitable support, everybody ends up benefitting. If you want to think in terms of non-linear dynamics, society moves from a locally optimum configuration to a (more) globally optimum configuration.
I understand perfectly well how economics and technology work. I use to sell and install energy management systems since the 1973 oil crisis. The buyers had to see that there was a good enough return on investment to make the investment in the first place. When the government gets involved with subsidies, it thinks it knows the best way of doing these things. The savings purported are BS because it's really coming from the subsidy that others are paying, not from the reduction of energy and associate utility costs. All it does is distort the marketplace creating imbalances. People invest in companies that were subsidized like Solyendra that went bust.
You probably don't know this but years ago the oil industry had a tax subsidy called the oil depletion allowance for oil that is not left in the ground because they're drilling and removing it. They finally got rid of it. But it sounds pretty stupid now, doesn't it.
Look at the subsidy for gasoline. 10% has to be methanol that comes from corn. So farmers grow corn for the gas companies and the price of food goes up because there's less corn for beef and other animal feed. Another stupid boondoggle.
You make it seem that only with government involvement, things won't be developed. That's just not true. The free-market and people making decisions in their own interest will help all these things if just the government would stay out of it and stop playing favorites who contribute to their election campaign funds. .
-
You make it seem that only with government involvement, things won't be developed. That's just not true. The free-market and people making decisions in their own interest will help all these things if just the government would stay out of it and stop playing favorites who contribute to their election campaign funds. .
Typical Libertard BS. The "free market" can only adjust to a local optimum, not a global one (the text book example is Betamax and VHS). People on their own make short term decisions that suit them - even if a better solution would be arrived at by concerted action. Like here - obviously it would be better on the whole if a non-polluting technology replaced fossil fuels, but for now the economics are such that individuals will not foot the bill - why should I pay out of my pocket to make the planet a better place for your kids?
-
The "free market" can only adjust to a local optimum, not a global one (the text book example is Betamax and VHS).
You can see this in play in the pharmaceutical industry as well. Why invest in developing potential cures for diseases when meds to manage or at least alleviate symptoms of those diseases have already been developed and are not just lucrative but also (to varying degrees) effective?
I do wonder how many of today's self-proclaimed free marketeers have read Smith's The Theory Of Moral Sentiments? His thinking is worlds away from the current fundamentalism.
-Dave-
-
You can see this in play in the pharmaceutical industry as well. Why invest in developing potential cures for diseases when meds to manage or at least alleviate symptoms of those diseases have already been developed and are not just lucrative but also (to varying degrees) effective?
I do wonder how many of today's self-proclaimed free marketeers have read Smith's The Theory Of Moral Sentiments? His thinking is worlds away from the current fundamentalism.
-Dave-
I don't understand your point. Samsung developed the Galaxy cellphone. Why did they bother when the iPhone was available, lucrative and effective? All products have competition. There's always someone who wants to make a better mousetrap. How are pharmaceuticals different?
-
Pharmaceutical companies are spending billions trying to find the next big cure because it will make them trillions. It's simple. Patents aren't forever and commoditisation of products reduces prices. Yes, there are notable exceptions that pop up where attempts are made to extort unreasonable returns, but they rarely last for long.
Mainly, though, if you aren't one of the pharmaceutical companies with a patent for a treatment on a major disease, then finding a cure is the only real way to get that market share and revenue. The companies that do have those patents don't want to be beaten to the punch (and since they have treatments may already have more advanced research) and so they all keep doing the research, the trials, and so on to try to deliver the next big cure.
The conspiracy theory nonsense about the industry is just that - nonsense. It doesn't make business or economic sense (let alone being nearly impossible to actually maintain and prevent from being leaked).
-
Pharmaceutical companies are spending billions trying to find the next big cure because it will make them trillions. It's simple. Patents aren't forever and commoditisation of products reduces prices. Yes, there are notable exceptions that pop up where attempts are made to extort unreasonable returns, but they rarely last for long.
Mainly, though, if you aren't one of the pharmaceutical companies with a patent for a treatment on a major disease, then finding a cure is the only real way to get that market share and revenue. The companies that do have those patents don't want to be beaten to the punch (and since they have treatments may already have more advanced research) and so they all keep doing the research, the trials, and so on to try to deliver the next big cure.
The conspiracy theory nonsense about the industry is just that - nonsense. It doesn't make business or economic sense (let alone being nearly impossible to actually maintain and prevent from being leaked).
What conspiracy? I don't understand the points you and Dave are making.
-
There is conspiracy - that's my point.
Others often suggest that cures aren't made available because there is a pharmaceutical industry conspiracy to stop them because they apparently make more money when people are sick, but as I said, it doesn't add up on any level.
-
My point has zilch to do with any imagined conspiracy. It's simply that humans can benefit from corporations being nudged or pushed or even forced to do things by other institutions with a broader ethical/societal view than the corporations themselves naturally possess. Company Uzemgablah, Inc. doesn't have to intrinsically care about the bigger picture as long as it pays attention to individuals/groups/organizations who do care.
-Dave-
-
Needs are fulfilled by companies and people who feel they make a profit from fulfilling those needs. Whether its a drug company, a metal supplier, a doctor, or the guy who opens a grocery store on the corner. That's the essence of free markets. Additionally, the government spends billions for research in combating diseases, new drugs and scientific research. There's also a huge offset in new stuff from military, environmental and other government departments that use their funding to pay private companies to develop new things.
-
why should I pay out of my pocket to make the planet a better place for your kids?
Uh, because it'll make the planet a better place?
-
I have a simpler view of this kind of action. Opening up national parks seems like a bizarre thing to do when you think of it. The National Parks DO NOT represent a great land mass, so how much more oil and copper or whatever can you dig out of them? It’s a symbolic action only. It’s saying, we’re rich and we can destroy the country if we want, so you’d better do what we say or else.
That is, if we can do this to national parks, think what we can do to your backyard.
I see this in much the same way as I see those photo ops from G20 meetings. All the discussions that take place at trade talks occur behind closed doors for years before the actual meeting. So what is the real purpose behind the meetings, the security, the baiting of protesters. IMO, the real purpose is to show "our leaders" behind fences and barriers, surrounded by swat teams, supposedly in danger from a few protesters throwing bottles. It is saying to us, "Look how important we are. Look what we are protecting you from?" And all the political leaders attending these things are the ones currently in power, so the re-election aspects are obvious. I see these things as a TV show, nothing more.
If they want or need more oil, do they really have to dig up the national parks, of all places? Do you really believe that that is necessary? It's a con, set up to create false debates in places like this forum. Where some people can say that nature is important and others more hard-headed and "realistic" can contradict and pretend that they're clear thinkers, unlike those wooly-headed ones who like birds and camping.
Stop it, it's silly. Do you really not believe that keeping the air and water clean is important? How would you feel if it was your daughter getting sick at the next Love Canal? Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes. Black lung disease is making a comeback in West Virginia, do you think that's a good "compromise" to make for "jobs". Really?
-
Needs are fulfilled by companies and people who feel they make a profit from fulfilling those needs.
Some needs are, some needs aren't - obviously. What exactly are you trying to say?
-
If there's a need for a product, someone will invent it.
-
You don't need the government to offer incentives at my expense. Let the customer pay for it.
-
Uh, because it'll make the planet a better place?
You snipped the context of my comment, which made it clear that I am saying exactly the same thing. My point was that an individual is unlikely to spend his own money for the good of someone else's kids (especially if that someone else has declined to do so). This is properly the role of government.
-
You don't need the government to offer incentives at my expense. Let the customer pay for it.
Naive viewpoint. How do you pay for the fire brigade? - wait till your house is on fire and then haggle over a price?
-
I was referring to tax incentives to get you to buy something like an electric car from Tesla.
-
If there's a need for a product, someone will invent it.
If there's the possibility of selling a product someone will invent it: That's why so many of the planets resources ( & so much human effort ) gets poured into the production of bloody stupid things: One of my idiot nieces ( I have a few ) asked her mother for a rose gold bluetooth enabled electric toothbrush costing 200 quid for Xmas. Thankfully her mother told her where to get off.
-
I was referring to tax incentives to get you to buy something like an electric car from Tesla.
Funny you should mention Tesla to support your argument, Alan. May I remind you that Elon Musk can't sell his Tesla straight from the factory directly to individual customers but is required in most states to sell through a middleman car dealership which of course raises its price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes
Nothing about taxes and doing business is ever straightforward and simplistic especially when there are lawyers required.
Everybody pays to play whether it's through taxation or subsidies.
-
I was referring to tax incentives to get you to buy something like an electric car from Tesla.
So you're fine with tax credits that you like, just not the ones you don't like?
Is it OK to get tax credits for education? For having children? For health insurance? For saving into a 401(k)? For adopting a child? For insulating your home? Mortgage interest? I can see 20 credits for individuals in total. Note that credits for a Tesla only apply to businesses, not individuals.
So looking at the individual credits it seems to me that the government is saying: get educated, have kids, get health insurance, save for retirement, adopt children, make your home more energy efficient, buy a home. Doesn't seem unreasonable at all.
-
The relevance of the initial post is being diluted by side commentaries.