• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans Propping Up the Fossil Fuel Industry Is Borderline Socialist

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,661
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

12/28/20
Republicans have been remarkably successful in labeling Democrats as socialists. But Democratic proposals that get tagged as “socialism” amount to little more than expanding the safety net, bringing the United States closer to Sweden, Canada, or Germany, all prosperous, democratic, capitalist countries. By contrast, Republicans are the ones that are gumming up the gears of American capitalism, promoting policies to prop up aging, anachronistic industries and, worst of all, enabling the imposition of environmental harms far in excess of what it would cost to avoid them. Republicans say they are in favor of capitalism, but they are actually in favor of crony capitalism, which tips the scales in favor of their favorite industries. Capitalism can be a tough master: The point of capitalism is that competition causes some industries to fail. But protecting industries from failure in exchange for political benefit is far worse: It is a dangerously short step to socialism. And traditional socialism necessarily implies authoritarianism—how else is a country to undertake central economic planning except by an authoritarian government? That is actually where the Republican Party is taking us. Exhibit A: This past summer, 36 Republican senators and representatives singled out energy companies and wrote to President Donald Trump urging him to “prevent financial institutions from discriminating against America’s energy sector.” Discriminating?

Exhibit B: The Trump administration has spent more than $1 billion of taxpayer money trying to figure out how to capture the global-warming carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, so as to be able to keep them running. That, despite the fact that not a single coal-fired power plant has been proposed for construction since 2017; even the plant that was proposed then was scrapped earlier this year. But that has not discouraged Republicans from trying to prop up coal. The essence of the Republican strategy boils down to favoring their patron industries, maintaining 100-year-old tax subsidies for fossil fuels, and pushing hard for environmental deregulation that allows companies to pollute and dump and accelerate our frightening rush toward climate change. Environmental harms from pollution are real costs that polluting industries should bear, just like their other costs of production. But thanks to Republican interventions, these costs are instead borne by the American public in the form of millions of avoidable illnesses and hundreds of thousands of lives lost annually to pollution from coal-fired power plants, harmful pesticides sprayed over millions of acres of crops, and toxic chemicals that are everywhere, even in the fabric of your living room sofa. In the Republican worldview, “liberty” and “freedom” are the unfettered ability of their political cronies to rob Americans of their health, well-being, and lives.


The GOP subsidization of fossil-fuel industries that bring ruin upon our environment and contribute mightily to climate warming has to stop.

I hope John Kerry is more than merely a figurehead climate czar.
 




The GOP subsidization of fossil-fuel industries that bring ruin upon our environment and contribute mightily to climate warming has to stop.

I hope John Kerry is more than merely a figurehead climate czar.
It's strange that these multibillion dollar companies need free money to survive......
 




The GOP subsidization of fossil-fuel industries that bring ruin upon our environment and contribute mightily to climate warming has to stop.

I hope John Kerry is more than merely a figurehead climate czar.

By what tool or action are the subsidies that have you so worked up being "paid"?
 




The GOP subsidization of fossil-fuel industries that bring ruin upon our environment and contribute mightily to climate warming has to stop.

I hope John Kerry is more than merely a figurehead climate czar.
I don't think that writer understands what "socialism" is.

btw, I wonder what that writer calls the Solyndra mess. Socialism? I doubt it.
 
I don't think that writer understands what "socialism" is.

btw, I wonder what that writer calls the Solyndra mess. Socialism? I doubt it.
Were Obama and "Obamacare" socialist?
 
Can capitalism survive in a relatively civil society without socialism? Isn't public infrastructure a form of socialism? Aren't regulations a form of socialism?

Has America ever NOT had a form of socialism? Isn't taxation a form of socialism? If so, then the Constitution is a partly socialist document. And the US economy is mostly a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
 
I don't think that writer understands what "socialism" is.

btw, I wonder what that writer calls the Solyndra mess. Socialism? I doubt it.
Ironic comment given that the right labels anything and everything proposed by the left as socialist or socialism.
 
He certainly understands what "crony capitalism" is eh?
I think he does...and that should have been the thrust of his argument.

But, of course, then he couldn't have engaged in beating up the GOP because he would have had to be honest and admit that the Dems are just as much crony capitalists as the Reps.
 
Were Obama and "Obamacare" socialist?
Obamacare came as close as we've ever been to outright controlling an entire industry.
 
Ironic comment given that the right labels anything and everything proposed by the left as socialist or socialism.
I don't give a rat's ass what you think "the right" does. I speak for myself.
 
btw, I wonder what that writer calls the Solyndra mess. Socialism? I doubt it.
The Solyndra "mess?" Solyndra was a company that participated in a Department of Energy program to provide low-interest loans to companies to encourage risky corporate innovation in alternative energy and energy efficiency. The program became infamous when one if its borrowers, the solar energy company Solyndra, was unable to repay its loan. However as a whole, since its inception in 2009, the program has turned a profit. And it has been effective: it lent money to Tesla to build its factory in Fremont, CA, when the private sector would not, for example. Its loans to early-stage solar energy companies launched the industry. There are now thirty-five viable utility-scale, privately funded soar companies—up from zero a decade ago.

The fact that a company in this program failed was entirely predictable--the whole point of the program is to encourage risk. That means sometimes the risky investment fails. But the overwhelming number of projects have not only worked, they launched entire industries in America.
 
I don't think that writer understands what "socialism" is.

btw, I wonder what that writer calls the Solyndra mess. Socialism? I doubt it.
Ah, Solyndra.

One of my favorite conservative myths. Thanks for the opportunity to debunk it.

We all know the myth, so I won't rehash it.

But, far from being a waste of money propping up hopeless green technology, the story is far more nuanced.

Solyndra's technology was not flawed. It was an American company with a flexible panel that most importantly used much less of one of the key elements of PV panels. Gallium or Gallium arsenate, IIRC. Supplies of this were limited due to geopolitical issues. So Solyndra'a tech was cheaper, and the flexibility made them more useful. (I'm pretty sure the tech was purchased and is in production. For sailboats and what have you, where rigid, glass covered panels are problematic.)

Then stuff happened. The Gallium became more available due to some treaty or change in leadership. From scarcity to glut.

And China started building solar panel factories for anyone who wanted one.

This kicked the legs out of the market across the globe, not just Solyndra.

Solyndra was not a boondoggle or any such thing. It was a promising technology killed by a coincidence of global events.

Hopefully this will remove Solyndra from your fictitious history callbacks.

The more ya know, ya know?
 
I don't give a rat's ass what you think "the right" does. I speak for myself.
And you just happen to arrive at exactly the same positions as the day's narratives.

Never have been able to reconcile these two things. Your claims and your posts.
 
that industry needs our socialist help. they don't make any profits.
 
The Solyndra "mess?" Solyndra was a company that participated in a Department of Energy program to provide low-interest loans to companies to encourage risky corporate innovation in alternative energy and energy efficiency. The program became infamous when one if its borrowers, the solar energy company Solyndra, was unable to repay its loan. However as a whole, since its inception in 2009, the program has turned a profit. And it has been effective: it lent money to Tesla to build its factory in Fremont, CA, when the private sector would not, for example. Its loans to early-stage solar energy companies launched the industry. There are now thirty-five viable utility-scale, privately funded soar companies—up from zero a decade ago.

The fact that a company in this program failed was entirely predictable--the whole point of the program is to encourage risk. That means sometimes the risky investment fails. But the overwhelming number of projects have not only worked, they launched entire industries in America.
And as i elaborated on downthread, Solyndra was killed by essential elements that had been scarce due to geopolitics that opened up again and China started building solar panel factories for anybody who wanted one. Their panel's went from cheaper to more expensive, their output per square foot was lower that standard panels. So they couldn't compete. But their panels were flexible and durable and I'm pretty sure the tech was sold off and is being used on sailboats and whatnot. There is a product like that now.
 
And as i elaborated on downthread, Solyndra was killed by essential elements that had been scarce due to geopolitics that opened up again and China started building solar panel factories for anybody who wanted one. Their panel's went from cheaper to more expensive, their output per square foot was lower that standard panels. So they couldn't compete. But their panels were flexible and durable and I'm pretty sure the tech was sold off and is being used on sailboats and whatnot. There is a product like that now.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of the role of government in supporting industry, fracking was not the brainchild of private-sector research but the fruit of research paid for twenty years ago by the Department of Energy.

The private sector often only steps in after the federal government shows it can work or funds the research.
 
Can capitalism survive in a relatively civil society without socialism? Isn't public infrastructure a form of socialism? Aren't regulations a form of socialism?
Has America ever NOT had a form of socialism? Isn't taxation a form of socialism? If so, then the Constitution is a partly socialist document. And the US economy is mostly a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
Discussions like these here at DP always occur with the conservatives taking the most extreme version of socialism possible. Technically, socialism requires central planning of the economy. No one advocates that. Used colloquially, socialism can mean anything from police and fire protection to Medicare.
 
Back
Top Bottom