Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (244405)	8/1/2005 11:07:24 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575803

re: That's not the point - I think the goal is to encourage them to find more domestic oil and thus reduce US dependence on foreign oil. Just because they are currently profitable doesn't mean the government SHOULDN'T encourage them to find more domestic oil. The point is that that they already have such windfall profits, that the incremental incentives are not going to make any difference in their total exploration budget. If you throw the same dollars at conservation and efficiency, then you could have a dramatic impact on imports. It's been widely reported that the US passenger fleet mileage efficiency has actually GONE DOWN since the late 80's. Why not incent the purchase price of a Dodge Neon (and other highly efficient cars) that get 30+ miles per gallon. Use the energy bill $'s that will just go to the bottom line of the oil companies to incent the purchase of efficient vehicles and you can really make a difference. Of course that would benefit real people rather than corporations, and that's not part of the "current agenda". John

To: Elroy who wrote (244405)	8/1/2005 11:28:14 AM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 1575803

>Are you saying the new energy bill reduces the number of vehicles that can receive tax credits from whatever the number was to 60k? Yes... I don't believe that there was a limit. I mean, as far as I know, more than 60K hybrids have been sold in this country this year so far, and if I were to buy an Accord hybrid today (which isn't too far off), I'd still get that tax credit. >That's not the point - I think the goal is to encourage them to find more domestic oil and thus reduce US dependence on foreign oil. Just because they are currently profitable doesn't mean the government SHOULDN'T encourage them to find more domestic oil. As I said, they're lobbying their asses off to be able to go after oil in places that would be environmentally disastrous, and this encourages them to do so. >Fine, money spent for alternative energy sounds desirable, if it actually discovers something. On the other hand, if it discovers nothing, that would be a bummer and a big waste of money It doesn't have to go to the energy companies... why couldn't $3 billion be used to encourage automakers to build hybrids, or to subsidize hydrogen stations? >You mean no sales taxes on SUVs? Why is that? It's a widely used loophole meant for farm-equipment, but used by consumers to buy SUVs and big trucks. Dems in Congress have been trying to close it for a while, but the crazies in Congress who say "I love my SUV with my gun rack" have purposely prevented that from happening. >Dude! It's not called the environmentalist's bill, it's the energy bill! What the hell were you expecting, an energy bill that lowered Greenpeace's taxes? :-) I was expecting what we got -- Bush has been pushing this bill since 2001. But I agree with MM -- it's horrible, horrible, horrible. >No. But I think you are changing the subject. I wanted to know why mindmeld thought the energy bill was bad for energy location and usage, I was not interested in the environment (I live in a desert, it's hot all day, every day!). So apparently you don't see why energy and the environment are related. Believe me, in U.S. politics, they're a lot more related than energy and the "war on terror" or whatever it's being called now. -Z