Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Romney called Tesla a "loser" Tesla is posting profits, expects to pay back the loan 5 years ahead of schedule, and won Motor Trend's Car of the Year.

Six months after Mitt Romney called the Department of Energy’s loan to electric auto company Tesla Motor Co. a “loser,” Tesla has announced it will post its first ever profit in the Q1 2013 and expects to pay back its Department of Energy loan 5 years ahead of schedule, by the end of 2017. Meanwhile, Tesla’s Model S was unanimously voted Motor Trend’s Car of the Year in November 2012.
 .
Wasn’t there some other contest that happened in November of 2012? I feel  like there was.
 .
If we’re going to talk about picking losers, though, let’s talk about picking Tesla as your “gotcha” zinger during the presidential debates. If you’re going to call someone a “loser,” maybe don’t choose Tesla, which has nearly every demographic in the entire United States rooting for it. Let’s review:
  1. Environmentalists: Don’t like 10,000 barrels of crude oil running down the streets of your cul-de-sac? An electric car may be for you.
  2. Car fans: Sadly, the rumor that Tesla would be racing in Nascar was just an April Fool’s joke, but its Roadster model has already won a four-car drag race against a Lotus Exige, a Porsche GT3, and a Porsche Carrera GT (video below). Surely the Nascar Dad demo can get behind that.
  3. Geeks: Tesla’s Chairman and CEO is Elon Musk, who is also the founder of PayPal and the CEO and chief designer of the Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX). In case that’s not enough geek cred for you, Musk is even fluent in the Geek dialect, telling the press after Mitt Romney’s “loser” comment and subsequent loss in the presidential election, “In retrospect, he was right about the object of that statement, but not the subject.” (Translation for those of you who do not speak awkwardese: “Who’s the loser now, motherfucker?”)
  4. People who like awesome things: See, e.g., photo above, video of drag race below.
Lesson: Do not bet against a geek. (Auto journalist Dan Neil already tried that back in 2009, betting Musk he could not build the Model S “within the technical specifications Mr. Musk laid out before the end of 2012.” Musk won, but he donated $1 million to charity anyway.)

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Apr. 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Replies (141-147):
meriana
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 10:34 AM
2 moms liked this

If Romney called it a "loser", I thinking he didn't have any stock in it at the time and perhaps a whole lot of investment in oil, etc.

sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 10:38 AM
2 moms liked this

 O the musings of a bored rich guy and his nefarious backers

LindaClement
by Thatwoman on Apr. 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Ocean energy is a boondoggle. Start by talking about what kind of impact turbines will have on marine life, and when you're done, talk about the millions of migrating birds killed by wind farms. 

I'm not talking about 'use more or none.' Electricity doesn't burst forth out of the air in a usable format --it has to be generated. The (current) processes avaiable to do so are either environmental disasters in their own right, or just a different fossil fuel.

Until there is anything as cheap, as safe and as readily available as oil, people will not be converting. And, until there is anything even approximately as efficient as fossil fuels, the costs will either be ridiculously high, or highly subsidized. Do you want to be Spain?

More than a decade ago, Germany and Spain created similar laws to aggressively promote the adoption of renewable energy. The two countries were again marching in step on Thursday—this time to fix a web of subsidies and compensations they created for green energy that had the unintended effect of driving up household electricity bills.

"One drawback of the all-carbon prototype is that it primarily absorbs near-infrared wavelengths of light, contributing to a laboratory efficiency of less than 1 percent – much lower than commercially available solar cells."

and

The thermal efficiency of geothermal electric plants is low, around 10-23%,[15] because geothermal fluids are at a low temperature compared with steam from boilers. By the laws of thermodynamics this low temperature limits the efficiency of heat engines in extracting useful energy during the generation of electricity. 

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Are you using the logic. Don't use less oil. Either use more, or none?

The change is not going to happen over night.

We are not going to go from dependant on fossil fuels to completely independant from it over night.

Using less fossil fuels would still be a great shift and it would also help in furthering alternative energies.

What about Solar Panels made from carbon solar cells? Windmills? Thermol energy? Biomass? Ocean energy. There are lots of methods to explore.

And either way-Using less of a dirty fuel  is a step above using more of it.

Quoting LindaClement:

Where is the electricity coming from? 

Nuclear power?

Dammed rivers?

Coal-burning plants?

Pick your environmental-disaster of choice. Don't pretend using natural oil is 'worse' than any source of electricity until it's solar that does NOT use plastic...




grandmab125
by Gold Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Energy

|
1/02/2013 @ 1:44PM |5,294 views

Oil & Gas Tax Provisions Are Not Subsidies For "Big Oil"

 

575
112
104
0
0

"Now my recollection of what a subsidy means is when you are given money to do something. I guess when I drilled 17 dry holes in a row I missed that pay window. No one sent me a check." - Harold Hamm, Chairman and CEO of Continental Resources

 

The ongoing debate in Washington over the possible repeal of what news media outlets commonly refer to as "subsidies" to the oil and gas industry has been an ongoing source of amusement and consternation to those who work in the industry for four years now. It's somewhat amusing given the reality that, as Harold Hamm told a recent congressional hearing, the oil and natural gas industry does not actually receive any tax "subsidies" from the federal government, but frustrating because pretty much no one in the news media ever reports on the subject accurately.

The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code. There is nothing uncommon or out of the mainstream of tax treatments about any of the provisions that have been repeatedly proposed for repeal.

So how did all of this misinformation get started? It all began in 2009. Within days of being sworn in as the nation's 44th President, Barack Obama ordered his staff to scour the tax code for any provision that was relevant to the oil and gas industry, and promptly began proposing them for repeal. The oil and gas industry has always been an easy target for political demagoguery, and that dynamic has played out repeatedly and consistently in this Administration.

Unfortunately, most media outlets and reporters have chosen to basically repeat the Administration's mantra that these tax treatments - several of which have been in the tax code for almost a century - are somehow unique, specific to the oil and gas industry, and are "subsidies" for "big oil". A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913, meaning it will be a full century old this year.

Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry's version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a "subsidy" for "big oil", this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on "big oil" at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.

Another great example of the specious mischaracterization of these tax treatments is the Manufacturer's Tax Deduction, more commonly referred to as Section 199. The Section 199 provision was enacted by congress in 2004 as a means of encouraging manufacturers to relocate overseas jobs to the U.S., and is in no way specific to or limited to the oil and gas industry. In fact, the oil & gas industry's ability to take advantage of this provision has already been singled out for limitation - in 2008, Congress reduced the industry's deduction under this provision to 2/3rds of what other manufacturing industries are allowed to deduct.

The tax code contains a couple of credits related to the oil and gas industry - the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Tax Credit, and the Marginal Well Tax Credit. Far from being "subsidies" to "big oil", these tax credits are used almost exclusively by small to mid-size independent producers who tend to become the operators of marginal oil and gas fields as they age and are divested by the larger companies. The EOR credit was implemented in 1990, and the Marginal Well Credit was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Finally, let's talk about Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs), another feature of the federal tax code that will enjoy its' 100th birthday in 2013. Basically, IDCs are the costs incurred by the oil and gas industry in the drilling of its wells. Since drilling wells is the only means of finding oil and natural gas, IDCs essentially amount to what any other industry would be able to deduct as a part of its cost of goods sold, a concept of accounting and tax law as old as the tax code itself.

Independent producers and royalty owners are allowed an election to either a) expense these costs in the year they are incurred, or b) amortize them over a 5-year period. Again, most media reports commonly characterize this as a "subsidy" for "big oil", as does the Obama Administration. The truth is that "big oil" - the ExxonMobils, Chevrons, Shells and BPs of the world - benefit much less from this tax treatment, it having been severely limited to them by congress in 1986, and again in 1992. And the truth also is that IDCs are not a "subsidy" to anyone engaged in the oil and gas business.

Bottom line: Despite the Administration's rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not "subsidies" that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries. Rather than being mostly a benefit to "big oil", the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners. Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nation's most productive - albeit easily demonized - manufacturing industries.

It would be a benefit to everyone if media outlets and their reporters would quit repeating Administration talking points on this issue, and instead engage in some real journalism on the subject. I doubt anyone in the oil and gas industry will be holding their breath waiting for that to happen.

grandma B

Carpy
by Ruby Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 12:37 PM
They are only considered subsidies by twisted progressive thinking.

Quoting brookiecookie87:They are subsidized. They are given these tax breaks for exploration or/and develoment to the tun of 2.8 Billion a year in tax deductions. That is subsidizing the industry. 2.8 Billion is not a small number. And this deduction is given by our country. If everyone was behind the dirty fuel and wanted to keep using it and it wasn't destroying our land and putting people in danger. That would be one thing. But there are better ways. Safer ways. Greener ways. Those are the ways we should be encouraging and investing in. The Oil industry is very established and very profitable. It's time that they don't need those subsidies anymore. We have no need to encourage them to keep growing by the hand of the government. If they want to continue to explore and expand they have more than enough profits to do that.

Quoting Carpy:

The oild companies are not "subsidized".  They are tax breaks that ALL companies are allowed to take.  They do NOT get tax money given to them.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


You would have a point if the Oil industry was not subsidized as well. This just evens the playing field. And since it is an alternative to oil it makes even more sense.

Giving corporate welfare to a dirty industry that puts our environment and people at risk that already makes billions in profits doesn't make any sense.

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Apr. 3, 2013 at 12:41 PM

If your point is not, "use more or none".

Why are you here fighting an electric car that uses less oil than a normal car?

Why are you fighting any alternative method?

Again. I didn't say we can drop oil at this very moment and be dependant on other methods. I just pointed out there are many other methods. And with the proper research and investament those methods can be made better.

If we use your exampe of, "If it can't take us completely away from oil and be an efficient as oil forget about it". We will never shift from oil. It is going to take steps.

The oil industry is currently subsidized. They get tax breaks to the tune of 2.8 billion dollars. 2.8 billion dollars.

Investing in the future will be worth it.

Quoting LindaClement:

Ocean energy is a boondoggle. Start by talking about what kind of impact turbines will have on marine life, and when you're done, talk about the millions of migrating birds killed by wind farms. 

I'm not talking about 'use more or none.' Electricity doesn't burst forth out of the air in a usable format --it has to be generated. The (current) processes avaiable to do so are either environmental disasters in their own right, or just a different fossil fuel.

Until there is anything as cheap, as safe and as readily available as oil, people will not be converting. And, until there is anything even approximately as efficient as fossil fuels, the costs will either be ridiculously high, or highly subsidized. Do you want to be Spain?

More than a decade ago, Germany and Spain created similar laws to aggressively promote the adoption of renewable energy. The two countries were again marching in step on Thursday—this time to fix a web of subsidies and compensations they created for green energy that had the unintended effect of driving up household electricity bills.

"One drawback of the all-carbon prototype is that it primarily absorbs near-infrared wavelengths of light, contributing to a laboratory efficiency of less than 1 percent – much lower than commercially available solar cells."

and

The thermal efficiency of geothermal electric plants is low, around 10-23%,[15] because geothermal fluids are at a low temperature compared with steam from boilers. By the laws of thermodynamics this low temperature limits the efficiency of heat engines in extracting useful energy during the generation of electricity. 

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Are you using the logic. Don't use less oil. Either use more, or none?

The change is not going to happen over night.

We are not going to go from dependant on fossil fuels to completely independant from it over night.

Using less fossil fuels would still be a great shift and it would also help in furthering alternative energies.

What about Solar Panels made from carbon solar cells? Windmills? Thermol energy? Biomass? Ocean energy. There are lots of methods to explore.

And either way-Using less of a dirty fuel  is a step above using more of it.

Quoting LindaClement:

Where is the electricity coming from? 

Nuclear power?

Dammed rivers?

Coal-burning plants?

Pick your environmental-disaster of choice. Don't pretend using natural oil is 'worse' than any source of electricity until it's solar that does NOT use plastic...






Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Goodwoman614
by Satan on Apr. 3, 2013 at 1:38 PM

All I know is I'm so glad that out-of-touch slimy, plastic, used car salesman charlatan isn't our president.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN