# Huge Energy Bill - Has House Approval

• News
The Smoking Man said:
Great. And 19% goes to the oil companies who's last major development was unleaded.
Fossil fuels, unfortunately, are of vital importance to the way this country's economy runs. It would make no sense for this country to deny their importance and not be sure to keep the industry, that helps support so many others, prospering. It would make even less sense to smack them around like a redheaded step child because we're pissed that they are that important to us.
Aside from that...
http://www.chevron.com/technology/new_energy_technologies/renewable_energy.asp

The Smoking Man said:
I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?
Integral Fast Reactors...
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/
The website for Argonne National Laboratory mentioned in previous link...
http://www.anl.gov/
France and Nuclear Power...
http://greennature.com/article744.html [Broken]
China and Nuclear Power...
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/179030/china_races_to_expand_nuclear_power/ [Broken]
Japan and Nuclear Power...
http://www.japannuclear.com/

Last edited by a moderator:
loseyourname said:
You're also quite the expert on ad hominem arguments, aren't you? I'm younger than you and haven't lived in as many places, therefore I must be wrong and you must be right. Was that still considered to be a valid argument form when you were in school? Meanwhile, you don't even look at the bill being discussed, but you're the expert on it because you once worked for a utility company.
Actually, yes it was a valid argument and now it wasn't considered ad hominem.

There is something to be said for respecting your elders simply becasue of what they have experienced and the conclusions they have drawn from that experience.

You tell me to read this legislation for instance becasue in your reading, you didn't find anything wrong with it.

Well, in my 'experience', I have seen a great many pieces of similar legislation and it is not the content of the bill that is in question but the TYPE of legislation.

I have specified systems for banks in three countries, insurance companies in two countries and a power company in one and they were all 'tax based' legislation with the onus on the tax office to verify and administer decisions that were not in their perview.

loseyourname said:
What exactly do you expect from the government? I have to wonder. Is there such a thing as a bill with no loopholes? Seriously, man, read the damn bill and tell me what you would change about it. I'm sure it has plenty of real shortcomings, plenty that even a young sapling like I could find. Have you considered the alternative plans that were proposed and whether or not they were any better? Or are you simply going to complain no matter what is done? Until you at least look at the actual plan, you're making yourself look like a fool, with the appeal to age/wisdom/experience card. Come on.
I can answer it simply ... 'Who in the tax office is trained as a tax accountant and an expert in alternate fuel source development?' Did that require me to read a bill?

Nope.

How did I do that?

Without exception, trickled down especially when led by a specific target this is doomed to failure.

It's the football in the nuts scenario ... been there done that already.

Skyhunter
russ_watters said:
That a Senator would send money toward his home state is unsurprising and certainly not unique to Republicans, so you cannot use that as a stick with which to beat Republicans. But step back and have a look at what you are opposing: R&D. Personally, I think the US government has a vested interest in funding energy R&D.

Russ it is time to earn your super mentor status and make sure you have some knowledge on a subject before you start voicing an opinion.

Tom DeLay is a congressional representative from Texas, not a Senator. If you don't even know that most basic of information about him then you should not offer an opinion about his ethics.

Skyhunter
I apologize for not reading all the posts but I need to sleep and wanted to add a thought and ask a question before bedtime.

The current US government is willing to spend hundreds of billions a year on a war with no well defined goals.

What would happen to the price of PV panels if the government invested 100 billion a year to subsidize the production of photo-voltaics?

Reading how the actual tax incentives work is frightening, the tax incentive for hybrids laughable. It only covers the first 60,000 vehicles. Toyota will sell that many in 4 months.And the incentive for the purchaser is about $2000. I can still buy a loaded H2 and get a$60,000 write-off the first year.

TheStatutoryApe said:
Fossil fuels, unfortunately, are of vital importance to the way this country's economy runs. It would make no sense for this country to deny their importance and not be sure to keep the industry, that helps support so many others, prospering. It would make even less sense to smack them around like a redheaded step child because we're pissed that they are that important to us.
Aside from that...
http://www.chevron.com/technology/new_energy_technologies/renewable_energy.asp

Integral Fast Reactors...
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/
The website for Argonne National Laboratory mentioned in previous link...
http://www.anl.gov/
France and Nuclear Power...
http://greennature.com/article744.html [Broken]
China and Nuclear Power...
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/179030/china_races_to_expand_nuclear_power/ [Broken]
Japan and Nuclear Power...
http://www.japannuclear.com/
I know what you're saying but I always have the nasty thought in my mind of San Andreas and Japan. Or even a conventional war.

Bomb my wind farm, shake my dam, break my solar panels but nuclear sites? ... It's really hard to justify a nuclear halflife based on results in ideal conditions. Even the Exxon Valdize doesn't have half the problems that a large nuclear accident could bring.

And I'm sorry but, I was in the UK when they started finding radioactive particles on the beach just down fron a British Nuke site. People were sunbathing on that beach and anyone laying on it would have been irradiated.

You just don't hear stories like this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1512884,00.html with regard to wind farms and the like. So far, the best they have come up with is they are ugly.

A couple of the sites you sent me to were cool. The U of Chicago biomass for example. I'm all for that.

I know I don't live in an ideal world AND I am a pessimist. I am very hard to convince on this issue.

Last edited by a moderator:
Skyhunter said:
I apologize for not reading all the posts but I need to sleep and wanted to add a thought and ask a question before bedtime.

The current US government is willing to spend hundreds of billions a year on a war with no well defined goals.
I know I am way off topic with this comment and I apologize in advance but:

Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?
A: $900+ billion Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.? A: 50% Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world,according to the UN? A: 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund the US retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).

The Smoking Man said:
People were sunbathing on that beach and anyone laying on it would have been irradiated.
Could one sunbathe without being irradiated?

Could one sunbathe without being irradiated?
In the North of England ... YES.

Do yourselves a favour and never tell these people about global warming. They'll be on the streets in droves burning old refrigerators and squirting aerosols into the air.

They had a clear day once near where I was born and they were threatening to sacrifice a virgin so the 'big yellow thing' would leave the sky. Thank heavens they couldn't find one.

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
Rebates don't work. Grants that are justified with targets etc. DO. It is a simple fact.

Grants are a large part of the bill. Again, something you would know if you would read it already.

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The Smoking Man said:
Actually, yes it was a valid argument and now it wasn't considered ad hominem.

Argumentum ad hominem means argumentation against the person. It's a way of deflecting from the actual arguments being made by your opponent. It is and has always been considered an informal logical fallacy. If you think this:

I am older and more experienced than you.
Therefore, you are wrong.

Is a valid argument, show me the truth table for it. It isn't.

There is something to be said for respecting your elders simply becasue of what they have experienced and the conclusions they have drawn from that experience.

You have the same amount of experience with this particular bill as I do - none. Heck, I might have more experience than you since I bothered to take a look at the thing before deciding it was all bunk. I decided to make up my own mind instead of accepting the headline accounts of what it contained.

You tell me to read this legislation for instance becasue in your reading, you didn't find anything wrong with it.

Not at all. I find plenty wrong with it. But they had to pass a policy of some sort and this is as good as anything else that was proposed. I'm asking you to read it because I feel that knowledge of a given bill is a prerequisite for intelligent discussion of the bill.

Well, in my 'experience', I have seen a great many pieces of similar legislation and it is not the content of the bill that is in question but the TYPE of legislation.

What "type?" All you've complained about are the rebates, which make up something like 11 out of 40 titles in the bill. There is a lot more to it than that, including many of the things you are saying should be included.

Without exception, trickled down especially when led by a specific target this is doomed to failure.

If you insist, but guess what? There are men as expert as you, more expert than you, that think otherwise. The appeal to authority doesn't work when the authorities can't come to agreement. That's why I'd like to at least see a specific objection to this legislation. Besides, you're wrong on at least one count. Tax rebates for energy conservation here in California have been very effective, and I'm glad this bill expands them. Or perhaps you thought the conservation rebates were primarily for energy providers, not individuals and businesses that actually use the energy. Maybe if you read the bill you wouldn't think that.

Last edited:
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Skyhunter said:
Toyota will sell that many in 4 months.And the incentive for the purchaser is about $2000. I can still buy a loaded H2 and get a$60,000 write-off the first year.

As far as I know, you don't get a tax break just for buying an H-2. You get one if you use it for business purposes, but that is the case for any car. A brother and sister pair I know have most of their leases on a Corvette and a Viper deductible because they advertise the name of commercial websites they own on the rear windshield.

loseyourname said:
As far as I know, you don't get a tax break just for buying an H-2.
Yes, you do. There is a special tax break just for trucks.
http://www.unlockingwealth.com/free_suv.htm [Broken]

--
The break for trucks got bigger this year under a schedule Congress adopted in 1996 when businesses could claim $17,500 in accelerated depreciation on equipment. That lump sum increased to$20,000 last year. It went up to $24,000 this year. Next year and thereafter the deduction will be$25,000.
[...]
The code is not as generous for luxury cars.
--

Last edited by a moderator:
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Yes, you do. There is a special tax break just for trucks.
http://www.unlockingwealth.com/free_suv.htm [Broken]

No you don't. That site even says you have to be self-employed and use the SUV for business purposes. The average citizen can't just buy an SUV and get a tax break.

You can get a larger deduction on luxury vehicles by counting it as a travel expense and as an advertising expense.

Don't get me wrong here. I think both loopholes should be closed, personally, but these are hardly the extent of how to get around paying taxes and get free things. There are plenty of creative accounting techniques one can use.

Last edited by a moderator:
loseyourname said:
No you don't. That site even says you have to be self-employed and use the SUV for business purposes. The average citizen can't just buy an SUV and get a tax break.

You can get a larger deduction on luxury vehicles by counting it as a travel expense and as an advertising expense.

Don't get me wrong here. I think both loopholes should be closed, personally, but these are hardly the extent of how to get around paying taxes and get free things. There are plenty of creative accounting techniques one can use.
Question: Do you know it is possible for a private citizen to register himself as a business and then purchase assets in the name of that business?

You can then draw your salary tax free to that company and pay yourself substantially less while maintaining all your assets in your company name. You would then only be liable for personal income tax on the amount you pay yourself which is essentially enough to buy things that are not tax deductable.

The rest of your money then becomes subject to corporate taxes AND corporate deductions including the purchase of SUVs, H2s and the like.

"There is more in this heaven and Earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The Smoking Man said:
Question: Do you know it is possible for a private citizen to register himself as a business and then purchase assets in the name of that business?

You can then draw your salary tax free to that company and pay yourself substantially less while maintaining all your assets in your company name. You would then only be liable for personal income tax on the amount you pay yourself which is essentially enough to buy things that are not tax deductable.

The rest of your money then becomes subject to corporate taxes AND corporate deductions including the purchase of SUVs, H2s and the like.
"There is more in this heaven and Earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Well...It's a bit more complicated then that...and bit more costly then your portraying.

The Smoking Man said:
Question: Do you know it is possible for a private citizen to register himself as a business and then purchase assets in the name of that business?
Citizens in the market for machine guns and super-shorty shotguns know this.
http://www.serbu.com/nfainfo.htm [Broken]

--
4) Form a corporation. This is a loophole which gets you around the sign off. Do this ONLY if you can't get a sign off. The down side is that there are many hassles associated with forming and maintaining a corporation. Another down side is that the corporation owns the guns, you don't.
--

Last edited by a moderator:
loseyourname said:
Argumentum ad hominem means argumentation against the person. It's a way of deflecting from the actual arguments being made by your opponent. It is and has always been considered an informal logical fallacy. If you think this:

I am older and more experienced than you.
Therefore, you are wrong.
Nope. You wrote that.

I stated that I am older than you and I have therefore had experience with this type of legislation before from a professional standpoint and in my personal life.

Tell me ... if some kid is working in a garage and is half way through hooking up a scope to an engine and a guy who has 25 years in the business walks in and hears a tic and says, "It's missing on the third piston", is this an ad hominem attack too?

loseyourname said:
You have the same amount of experience with this particular bill as I do - none. Heck, I might have more experience than you since I bothered to take a look at the thing before deciding it was all bunk. I decided to make up my own mind instead of accepting the headline accounts of what it contained.
Look, kid, I keep telling you that the thing is a dog because of the premise being based in TAX REBATES.

Again, you're in loseyourname lalaland. How many people in the SENATE read the bill before the vote?

Here's a hint. Go and look at the Patriot Act and see if you can read the thing in the two days they took before IT was passed.(No that wasn't an attempt at digression. That was an attempt at pointing out to you that most legislation is not even read by the people who vote on the things. I suggest you watch F9/11 where Moore asks that same question and is invited to 'sit down while the facts of life are read to him'.)

loseyourname said:
Not at all. I find plenty wrong with it. But they had to pass a policy of some sort and this is as good as anything else that was proposed. I'm asking you to read it because I feel that knowledge of a given bill is a prerequisite for intelligent discussion of the bill.
Do you actually know how long this bill as been around? Do you think I don't actually know what is in it? This is the same pig that Bush has been trying to push through since day one of his presidency where he wanted to open up nature preserves in Alaska to drilling.

loseyourname said:
What "type?" All you've complained about are the rebates, which make up something like 11 out of 40 titles in the bill. There is a lot more to it than that, including many of the things you are saying should be included.
Well, hey ... it must be good. The People's Daily thinks it is. http://english.people.com.cn/200507/30/eng20050730_199280.html
loseyourname said:
If you insist, but guess what? There are men as expert as you, more expert than you, that think otherwise. The appeal to authority doesn't work when the authorities can't come to agreement. That's why I'd like to at least see a specific objection to this legislation. Besides, you're wrong on at least one count. Tax rebates for energy conservation here in California have been very effective, and I'm glad this bill expands them.
Wow, now you are quoting the record of the state that just a couple of years ago was in default on their energy bill which allowed the 'Governator' to assume office.
loseyourname said:
Or perhaps you thought the conservation rebates were primarily for energy providers, not individuals and businesses that actually use the energy. Maybe if you read the bill you wouldn't think that.
Okay, I'll give you your merrit badge in 'Bill Reading'. Then, we'll forbid anyone who has not read the 1,200 page tome from even commenting on it because they just can't hold a candle to you!

Is that what you want?

Most people in the USA will never read your 1,200 page 'act' and you know what? ... they will all manage to debate the issue quite comfortably.

Heck, if you go over onto 'fox news' and do a search on 'Energy Bill' they even have some accountants sponsoring links to get you the best deal on the dollar ladder. No, that wasn't how to set up a business doing research or drilling a well, or getting a quicker permit or any of the things the bill purports to do. It is a direct link to 'accounting your way to wealth'.

Gold Member
More on the Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Energy Bill

Aside from my state representatives (McCain, Kyle, Flake, etc.) opposing the energy bill...

I just received my electric bill. They are promoting their program "Earthwise Energy" in which I may make a contribution ranging in $3 to$12 additional to my monthly bill in support of renewable energy sources. Apparently the subsidies in the new energy bill are not enough, so customers are now being encouraged to 'donate' to this big utility as well.

I can't imagine why people feel our country is heading in the wrong direction...

The Smoking Man said:
I know what you're saying but I always have the nasty thought in my mind of San Andreas and Japan. Or even a conventional war.

Bomb my wind farm, shake my dam, break my solar panels but nuclear sites? ... It's really hard to justify a nuclear halflife based on results in ideal conditions. Even the Exxon Valdize doesn't have half the problems that a large nuclear accident could bring.

And I'm sorry but, I was in the UK when they started finding radioactive particles on the beach just down fron a British Nuke site. People were sunbathing on that beach and anyone laying on it would have been irradiated.

You just don't hear stories like this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1512884,00.html with regard to wind farms and the like. So far, the best they have come up with is they are ugly.

A couple of the sites you sent me to were cool. The U of Chicago biomass for example. I'm all for that.

I know I don't live in an ideal world AND I am a pessimist. I am very hard to convince on this issue.
I'm not sure what's up with the Brits and their nuclear power plants. They apearantly also tried out a breeder reactor design utilizing liquid sodium cooling, similar to the IFR design, and had several accidents involving coolant leaks which led to fires and serious injury, death too if I remember correctly. And now they have workers collecting radioactive samples with a wellington boot on a string...

True, wind has relatively little negative impact. There is one other factor aside from ugliness though. There have been reports from environmentalists regarding impact on avian population due to the birds flying into the mill blades. There is also the matter of the amount of space being taken up by the mills as opposed to a power plant. I've read that some of these projects have turned out to not be as cost effective as they were sold as being among other problems, unfortunately the only people I have found really giving these stories much attention are conservative wackos who think that Kyoto is a conspiracy against the US.
The problems with wind that don't really need varification though are: The mills need to be in areas where they will be effective, there aren't many areas with a max effectiveness across the US though those that do exist supposedly can create enough energy for the entire country. Irregularity of the energy source, the slack and down time will need to be made up for by another power source. Line losses, considering that there are only certain locations where it would be economical to use wind farms the energy will need to be transported over long distances to get to many cities which will incur line losses. This would also require quite a bit of infrastructure.
I'm not against it. I think it's a good idea for areas that can utilize it best, but it's not the answer that it's promoted as.

Argonne's projects definitely look good, I need to read more of the material on their site.

TheStatutoryApe said:
I think it's a good idea for areas that can utilize it best, but it's not the answer that it's promoted as.

Argonne's projects definitely look good, I need to read more of the material on their site.
I am with you there, I don't think there will ever be 'one' answer to this problem and we are going to be looking at hybrid solutions that take advantage of geological and environmental strengths the world over.

There will be 'simple solutions' that may not be the best.

I doubt we'll see the best answers used as the solutions we need as long as there are 'vested interests'.

All we can do individually is our best.

God, I sound lame.

SOS2008 said:
Aside from my state representatives (McCain, Kyle, Flake, etc.) opposing the energy bill...

I just received my electric bill. They are promoting their program "Earthwise Energy" in which I may make a contribution ranging in $3 to$12 additional to my monthly bill in support of renewable energy sources. Apparently the subsidies in the new energy bill are not enough, so customers are now being encouraged to 'donate' to this big utility as well.

I can't imagine why people feel our country is heading in the wrong direction...
and the promotion I recieved with my bill tells us that August 22nd or something is "Safe neighborhood day" and to show our support we should all waste electricity by leaving our front porch light on....

Skyhunter
loseyourname said:
As far as I know, you don't get a tax break just for buying an H-2. You get one if you use it for business purposes, but that is the case for any car. A brother and sister pair I know have most of their leases on a Corvette and a Viper deductible because they advertise the name of commercial websites they own on the rear windshield.
You are correct. The deduction is for businesses and the vehicle must be used for business at least 50% of the time. This is a very popular loophole for doctors, lawyers, and realtors

Here is a good link for hybrid -vs- hummer

http://www.ucsusa.org/hybridcenter/page.cfm?pageID=1702\ [Broken]

Check out Orrin Hatch's Clear act. Unfortunately it wasn't included in the energy bill, but it still has a chance if he can muster enough support.

http://www.ucsusa.org/hybridcenter/act/hybridtaxcreditsaction.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
Gold Member
kat said:
and the promotion I recieved with my bill tells us that August 22nd or something is "Safe neighborhood day" and to show our support we should all waste electricity by leaving our front porch light on....
:rofl: :rofl: That's hilarious!

loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Astronuc said:
"Energy Policy Act of 2005" - http://www.ne.doe.gov/EPAct2005/hr6_textconfrept.pdf

1724 pages

I read the outline when we were first going through this thread. No way I'm tackling that whole thing. I don't envy the senatorial aides that will have to, either.

Last edited by a moderator: