Sharon asks…
Have you examined McCain’s record on energy?
He told us to examine his record, and I did. Here’s just a bit of what I found. (Yahoo only allows so many links.) McCain voted against:
S. Amendment 222, 1993
To reduce the level contained in the budget resolution by an amount sufficient to assume an exemption for biomass-derived ethanol under the administration’s Btu energy tax and to offset lost revenues by reducing new spending increases.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro…
—————————-
S. Amendment 223, 1993
To promote equity and conformance with the states goals of the Administration’s energy tax policies, which stress taxation of energy sources which are nonrenewable, are polluting, are inefficient, and produce dependence on foreign energy supplies, by providing for the exclusion of hydroelectric power.
Text of bill:: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?…
—————————-
Bill S4, 1994, To make permanent the research and development tax credit.
Text of bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c1…
—————————-
H.R. 820, 1994:
A bill to amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to enhance manufacturing technology development and transfer, to authorize appropriations for the Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and for other purposes.
Text of bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c1…
—————————-
S. Amendment 192, 1995:
To establish an application to requirements relating to the treatment and disposal of radioactive waste.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro…
—————————-
S. Amendment 3017, 2002
To establish renewable electric energy generation standards.
Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r1…
—————————-
S. Amendment 408, 2003
To require polluters to pay for cleanup of toxic waste sites, by reinstating the original superfund taxes. (Requires coal companies to clean up toxic sludge)
Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r1…
—————————-
S. Amendment 238, 2005
To promote innovation and U.S. competitiveness by expressing the sense of the Senate urging the Senate Committee on Appropriations to make efforts to fund the Advanced Technology Program, which supports industry-led research and development of cutting-edge technologies with broad commercial potential and societal benefits. (Increased clean energy R&D funding)
Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r1…
—————————-
S. Amendment 791, 2005
Addresses the cleanup of oil spills as well as R & D for renewable energy sources, including cellulosic biomass fuels.
Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r1…
—————————-
A bill to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy. (Energy funding for both fossil and clean energy.)
Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c1…
—————————-
Tell me why I should believe his policy on renewable energy will be any different going forward. (And before you ask – I actually read these bills, and there is no pork.)
The Expert answers:
Wish I could give you 5 stars!!
As far as this one:
Did you know he also made it illegal to drive radioactive waste through Arizona? Thats right..if its so safe…why not drive it through his state?
David asks…
what is the U.S.’s take on alternative energy?
A little insight before i state my question: There have been broad speculations as to weather or not alternative energy is going to take off within the following years, many people believe alternative energy such as the photovoltaic industry to be at its infant stage in a 30-50 year run. Analysts say the global credit recession will hit the industry hard. On the other hand, others say its just a phase in which people are scared of taking the first step to changing to alternative energy (ex: from electricity to photovoltaic energy) as “No one wants to be the fish biting a naked hook and paying dearly for it.” Amidst all the speculations, location and politics has a lot of effect on an industry such as this. The photovoltaic industry running in a country that has a lot of policies aiding green-energy politics would do far better than the same industry in a more fossil fuel structured country.
With all that being said, my question is quite clear. What is the United State’s stand on renewable energy, the Photovoltaic Industry per say, is the U.S. policy makers keen on aiding these industries? Or is hoping for a growth in renewable energy companies a helpless cause(in the U.S. in the present day)?
The Expert answers:
The market of Photovoltaic was created only thanks to the government subsidiaries.
As soon as the subventions stops, the market disappear. That’s what happened in a lot of countries.
Further more the photovoltaic panels produced in china are cheaper. Right now the offer is way superior to the demand. It will take time until this sector will recover form the burble burst in 2008.
Ken asks…
Does anybody realize Obama’s proposed energy plan will cost families $1,000’s?
Obama’s proposed energy plan, cap and trade tax on energy, was originally projected to cost $646 billion over 8 years. One of Obama’s top staffers, Jason Furm, now states that the plan will cost the industry over $2 trillion, an average of $20 billion annually.
The Heritage Foundation originally projected a $467 a year increase in utility bills for the average family, but with the additional costs it is now projected that this plan will cost American families an average of $1,800 more a year! And that’s an average that includes many families that don’t even have A/C. Not included in this is his plan to subsidize “green energies” to forcefully replace cheaper power which will raise energy costs even higher.
The Obama administration claims that the $800 a year “Making Work Pay” tax credit will offset this, but anyone that can do math can see the error in that. I am all for finding renewable energy, but does this make sense at a time when Americans are struggling? All to combat a “Global Warming” theory that 34,000 American Scientists have concluded there is no credible evidence that human release of greenhouse gas is causing it?
The Expert answers:
But didn’t you know that it’s more fashionable to pay into a failed system and turn America into a laughable, green trend society, than to help Americans function in a failing economy?
This is a corrupt system that will only profit the people who are ramming it through Washington. It won’t help Americans, and certainly not the environment. It is extremist legislature that will cost 2 jobs for every one “green” Pelosi job created.
Wax-losi politics at their best – everyone wetting their pants over a non-issue and happily handing more money over to yet another bureaucracy. And I’ve been told that *I* don’t care about children if I don’t support this…
Linda asks…
In what Economics class did the President learn that ending the tax credit for Big Oil will lower gas prices?
Everyone that studies economics knows that ending the tax credits will put pressure on supply, driving prices up and it will ultimately affect GDP in that it will go down, because there will be less money to spend, less jobs, more unemployment.
However I love that he counters it by saying that the subsidies should go to green energy, and it makes me laugh because don’t we subsidize the renewable energy programs already in the US, just look at ethanol. So question becomes, it is going to go to small renewable companies or is the money going to GE?
As a student of Economics, the best solution will be to continue the tax credits for now, and increase tax credits for smaller renewable energy companies, not GE (bureaucracy kills innovation), and eventually phase out oil subsidies once renewal energy becomes the largest source. We can’t punish Oil and Gas companies right now, because it will be detrimental to our economic recovery.
The Expert answers:
Common Sense isn’t part of government math
Donald asks…
What does popular tax provision means?
I’m trying to translate this part :
The change in course by the House was prompted by fears of a global economic meltdown, and by old-fashioned political inducements added by the Senate: a portfolio of $150 billion in popular tax provisions, including credits for the production of solar, wind and other renewable energy, and an adjustment to spare middle-class families from paying the alternative minimum tax.
I don’t really understand the idea could somebody try to explaine please
The Expert answers:
The house was motivated by fears of a global meltdown, meaning they feared they might not get re-elected.
The senate added voter-popular things to their bill, some listed.
“Popular tax provisions” are changes to the tax code that voters or special interest groups might like. Listed. The hope being that they might donate more money to their campaign or, if a voter, might vote for them.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers