The Democratic Party Just Sabotaged Bernie Sanders’ Campaign… Again

[Fugus]

Yeah, the emphasis on parental income has always struck me as deeply unfair. That much is true and I agree completely. Still, bread's notion that "VERY VERY FEW" people qualify for these is just wrong.

Yeah, have to agree on that one. While not enough qualify, there are plenty who do.

Honestly a fan of publicly funded public colleges. Would allow for more to go if they want while giving the private colleges something they actually need to compete against.

[Caolela]

Corporate welfare implies giving certain companies special favors over others. Allowing the free market to dictate energy policy is not corporate welfare. I am against strangling countries by forcing green or "safe" energy on them.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.or...romises-india/

Over $150 billion of taxpayer dollars has been spent since 2010 in the US alone on trying to implement solar power and it hardly even accounts for 4% of the nation's power. Acting like any type of renewable energy source is viable at the moment with maybe the exception of hydroelectric (which carries its own problems) is just fantasy.

cor′porate wel′fare

n.

financial assistance, as tax breaks or subsidies, given by the government esp. to large companies.

Let's discuss the actual fantasy here - yours.


This has nothing to do with your pipe dream of "free markets", except the free handout part that corporations are getting when they don't need them. A free market would be you sink or swim on your own - not subsidies, not bailouts, not tax breaks, not looking the other way for corporate crimes, not free underwriting, and we might also include not monopolies instead of competition. CAPITALISM!!, remember?

Again, it's OK with your ilk when it's socialism for a corporation, but not socialism for people or even small business.

When gov'ts including the U.S. assist corporations with welfare as they have for decades with the nuke industry, they are skewing the market. That is not "allowing the free market to dictate energy policy" as your pipe dream posits.

Your propagandist inference that a supposed "free market" would allow nuclear a better chance is ridiculous.

Most private investors want nothing to do with it:

...But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry....

...The Congressional Budget Office believes “the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high — well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for the risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources.” But that’s not all. The bill also authorizes the federal government to enter into power purchase agreements wherein the federal government would buy back power from the newly built plants — potentially at above market rates.

Keeping this provision in the energy bill will result in a double taxation: once to build the plants and then to buy back the power from the newly built plants. This would be like paying for your kids’ education and then agreeing to pay them a salary once they graduate...."

The conservative Cato Institute reported in 2003:...the costs of nuclear power are shared by the public but the profits are enjoyed privately. [crony capitalism, anyone?]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/...subsidies.html

and...

...Below is a summary of a few of the most egregious subsides the nuclear industry receives. This does not include the financial risk the federal government bears by insuring the nuclear industry, which is a liability well beyond any other federal subsidy. When it comes to Research and Development the US has also invested far more funds in nuclear power than other energy source.

...But despite the decades of generous support, nuclear power continues to be riddled with cost and risk concerns that keep private financial backers away and the industry relying more and more on federal taxpayers....

http://www.taxpayer.net/library/arti...ower-subsidies

So before you point the finger at truly safe forms of energy WITHOUT the associated issues of nuclear, maybe you should do some reading - or better yet, stop shilling for them and get a different job.

[Deletedaccount1]

Let's discuss the actual fantasy here - yours.

This has nothing to do with your pipe dream of "free markets", except the free handout part that corporations are getting when they don't need them. A free market would be you sink or swim on your own - not subsidies, not bailouts, not tax breaks, not looking the other way for corporate crimes, not free underwriting, and we might also include not monopolies instead of competition. CAPITALISM!!, remember?

Again, it's OK with your ilk when it's socialism for a corporation, but not socialism for people or even small business.

When gov'ts including the U.S. assist corporations with welfare as they have for decades with the nuke industry, they are skewing the market. That is not "allowing the free market to dictate energy policy" as your pipe dream posits.

Your propagandist inference that a supposed "free market" would allow nuclear a better chance is ridiculous.

So before you point the finger at truly safe forms of energy WITHOUT the associated issues of nuclear, maybe you should do some reading - or better yet, stop shilling for them and get a different job.

I never said that companies should get tax breaks for simply being a company that provides a certain type of energy. I am saying that the government should have no part in deciding energy policy, that is not "crony capitalism" or "corporate welfare". The bigger the government is in dictating energy policy, the bigger the welfare will be and this is essentially what you are arguing for.

If the government does help the nuclear industry and it would otherwise collapse, then sure I would be in favor of abandoning it in favor of other cheaper sources of energy but you have provided no evidence that this is the case.

Linking a congressional report about giving a subsidy to a company is just skewing my words as I said earlier, I have never argued that any companies should get special treatment from the government. If you seriously think that nuclear energy is less cost effective than solar or wind power I would like to see a source that cites the taxpayer efficiency of those programs, otherwise you are essentially creating a straw man.

[Vizardlorde]

Because I'm not so stupid that I can actually see why it is a good idea in most areas. Plants in the United States are incredibly safe and have tons of safety overrides in the event of a meltdown to prevent something like Chernobyl from happening again.

lol the turkey point plant just contaminated the ground water in south florida we are lucky its just hyper salinated water and not nuclear waste, but there goes safety.

[Caolela]

Where in hell do you get that I'm arguing for "gov't...dictating energy policy" and "the bigger the welfare will be"? You have no sensible retort so now it's invent things from thin air? GG.

Any idiot could probably tell that I'm arguing quite against corporate welfare that certain industries get, like nuclear. If you think your mythical "free market" should decide energy policy, however, it is obvious to a turnip that there would never have been a nuke plant built in the U.S. ever. But you chose to focus on solar & wind, which is a deflection.

You're obfuscation is showing, pull your skirt down a bit.

[Deletedaccount1]

Where in hell do you get that I'm arguing for "gov't...dictating energy policy" and "the bigger the welfare will be"? You have no sensible retort so now it's invent things from thin air? GG.

Any idiot could probably tell that I'm arguing quite against corporate welfare that certain industries get, like nuclear. If you think your mythical "free market" should decide energy policy, however, it is obvious to a turnip that there would never have been a nuke plant built in the U.S. ever. But you chose to focus on solar & wind, which is a deflection.

You're obfuscation is showing, pull your skirt down a bit.

You created a straw man by saying that I was supporting subsidies for industries otherwise that congressional review you linked was completely pointless.

Calling something "mythical" is not an argument. The government getting out of the energy business would help taxpayers and allow the most efficient methods of energy to rise to the top. If that meant nuclear power wasn't used then so be it but you have failed once again to show me how renewable energy would be cheaper and easier to implement so I have no reason to think that nuclear power would be abandoned.

[Caolela]

You created a straw man by saying that I was supporting subsidies for industries otherwise that congressional review you linked was completely pointless.

Calling something "mythical" is not an argument. The government getting out of the energy business would help taxpayers and allow the most efficient methods of energy to rise to the top. If that meant nuclear power wasn't used then so be it but you have failed once again to show me how renewable energy would be cheaper and easier to implement so I have no reason to think that nuclear power would be abandoned.

Wrong again. I linked those articles to show that your goofy pipe dream of "free markets" is not viable, and as such the nuke industry would go under if not for corporate welfare from gov'ts.

Also you have no room to squawk about my terminology when you use words like "fantasy", "strawman", and the like in this string with zero to back it up except the typical right-wing deflection and obfuscation - for example, going on about which energy is cheaper when we had started nowhere near that. You had been rattling on about "socialism" when I brought up the fact that your pet industry is also a large recipient of that flavor of gov't that you claim to detest so much.

At the end of the day, a solar or wind farm is not going to wipe out millions of hectares of arable land & water, or kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people and billions of flora & fauna for the next 1000 centuries. That's a price that cannot be measured, even when it's just another entry on a slavish corporation's accounting ledger.