Project 2025 and Conservation

Lol lower gas prices

all politicians are wishy washy neither are better then the other they both are on the take for there wealthy donors
Sorry, I meant in a narrow time frame. There is a lot of stuff going on in that chart that adds context, like Saudis and Russia trying a price war in late 2016 and 2017, but your point is taken. My only question to people with a desire for lower gasoline prices is if production cost for oil is $35/brl, what should a barrel trade at? Add in $5/brl for processing to finished product? I don't want O&G companies going bankrupt because it destabilizes the market and lets SA control the price. Unfortunately if you make the price of gasoline a political issue, you have SA having too much potential influence in US elections.

You can check O&G bankruptcies here. There are a lot of clown shows in the O&G exploration industry, so it can be noisy.
 
oil and gas agriculture subsidies are not the greatest but they do actually help buy reducing the price of product everyone can afford food fuel being the biggest take that away and prices go up alot more will suffer vs taking away solar subsidies

20k solar system 3k tax credit how many middle class families can afford that in our current situation look at everyone complaining about nr tag prices then the solar just pays it self off and it's time for a replacement system

you have to be a fool to finance a solar system for your home and that's the only way a non wealthy person is installing solar system
If a subsidized solar panel on a roof reduces demand and increases supply for power, how does that not do the EXACT same thing that the AG and OG subsidies do? You seem to be ignoring basic economic theory of supply and demand. Can't have it both ways.

Believe it or not, some people do things, like install solar on their homes, for reasons other than their own bottom line or financial gain. Yeah, I know hard for some to believe, but I'd be much more money ahead if I just bought tags like a vast majority do, and skipped all the advocacy and donations for public lands, wildlife, habitat, etc.

For what I spent a couple weeks back on fuel and lunch to testify against raising NR application fees, I could have purchased a general elk tag, a cow tag, and had enough left over to top off the fuel tank to get me where I need to go to fill them. Plus, I would have an extra vacation day to spend hunting as well.
 
You got to be fool to install solar in Minnesota. Anyone with 5th grade math skills can figure out it won't pay for itself by the time it needs to be replaced.

Wow just digging deeper!

That would be a surprise to many!

Including my solar designer friend who is doing a booming business.

And my rancher friend who's only barrier to installing them in his fields is the local coop....who....like many electric coops...is still weighed down by contracts with coal burning suppliers.
 
If a subsidized solar panel on a roof reduces demand and increases supply for power, how does that not do the EXACT same thing that the AG and OG subsidies do? You seem to be ignoring basic economic theory of supply and demand. Can't have it both ways.
5 percent of homes in the us have solar panels on there homes they produce pretty much nothing back into the grid currently

Currently 1 percent of cars are electric the other 99 percent are you guessed it gas or diesel the subsidies in oil and gas have a much greater impact currently

so if you want to get into supply and demand there is a much greater demand for the oil and gas then solar. Then 60 percent of the power currently produced in the us is produced by fossil fuels. Even more demand

I dont have a probelmnwith solar panels but instead of making it so just the upper middle class(wealthy) can afford them maybe they should put more effort into getting them on more roofs in lower class neighborhoods. Vs big solar fields I don't get how you can say you advocate for wildlife and be in favor large solar fields and then compalin about gas fields.
Believe it or not, some people do things, like install solar on their homes, for reasons other than their own bottom line or financial gain. Yeah, I know hard for some to believe, but I'd be much more money ahead if I just bought tags like a vast majority do, and skipped all the advocacy and donations for public lands, wildlife, habitat, etc.

OH we got buzz trump in the house....look at me I am the greatest no one is a better advocate then me I am the greatest around....look no one does it better I will show you just look what I have done for nr.....
 
Last edited:
5 percent of homes in the us have solar panels on there homes they produce pretty much nothing back into the grid currently

Currently 1 percent of cars are electric the other 99 percent are you guessed it gas or diesel the subsidies in oil and gas have a much greater impact currently

so if you want to get into supply and demand there is a much greater demand for the oil and gas then solar. Then 60 percent of the power currently produced in the us is produced by fossil fuels. Even more demand

I dont have a probelmnwith solar panels but instead of making it so just the upper middle class(wealthy) can afford them maybe they should put more effort into getting them on more roofs in lower class neighborhoods. Vs big solar fields I don't get how youbcanbsaybyoibadvocate for wildlife and be in favor large solar fields and then compalin about gas fields.


OH we got buzz trump in the house....look at me I am the greatest no one is a better advocate then me I am the greatest around....look no one does it better I will show you just look what I have done for nr.....
You're really grasping at straws now, show me where I said anything about supporting or being in favor of large solar or wind farms...I'll save you looking, I never have.

If you're not opposed to solar panels on roofs, and want the lower income bracket folks to have them, then I suggest you write your Representatives and Senators. Let them know you support a 100% tax deduction no matter your income level. Like I said, I'm much more in favor of subsidizing individuals over agribusinesses, OG oligarchs, etc.

Sounds like we're on the same page there, so my conclusion is, you're arguing with yourself.

As to the advocating it is what it is and like the subsidy argument you're attempting to make, you missed the point, by about a country mile.

Carry on arguing against yourself, its quite entertaining.
 
5 percent of homes in the us have solar panels on there homes they produce pretty much nothing back into the grid currently

Currently 1 percent of cars are electric the other 99 percent are you guessed it gas or diesel the subsidies in oil and gas have a much greater impact currently

so if you want to get into supply and demand there is a much greater demand for the oil and gas then solar. Then 60 percent of the power currently produced in the us is produced by fossil fuels. Even more demand

I dont have a probelmnwith solar panels but instead of making it so just the upper middle class(wealthy) can afford them maybe they should put more effort into getting them on more roofs in lower class neighborhoods. Vs big solar fields I don't get how you can say you advocate for wildlife and be in favor large solar fields and then compalin about gas fields.


OH we got buzz trump in the house....look at me I am the greatest no one is a better advocate then me I am the greatest around....look no one does it better I will show you just look what I have done for nr.....
Your arguments continue to be unfounded in any reality. Should we get rid of mortgage interest tax credits because poor people rent and it only benefits "rich" people?

Also, see below...This is why California stopped some net-metering programs. They were paying for electricity never used. It is also why CA started installing utility-scale batteries to store the electricity. Texas sees what happened there and is installing batteries also. This shouldn't be viewed in any partisan way. It should be about finding solutions to the problem.

 
In my state, the Trump administration stepped in and buried research into the potential harm that could be done if copper mining were allowed right outside--and connected to via water--the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness. They also renewed leases for mining that had previously been put on hold pending that review.

No copper mine has ever been conducted anywhere in the world without creating--and leaving behind--an environmental mess to clean up.
Sounds like maybe Trump understood that climate change is an imminent threat to humanity and that we must acquire the raw materials to transition to renewables and EVs if we want to have a chance at survival and he was standing up to the climate deniers, Russian interests and Big Oil, that want to halt the green revolution, no?



💀 < this is the head of someone still waiting for faux climate activists to state which deposit anywhere in the world is an acceptable source for all of the minerals required to complete their utopia.
 
Sounds like maybe Trump understood that climate change is an imminent threat to humanity and that we must acquire the raw materials to transition to renewables and EVs if we want to have a chance at survival and he was standing up to the climate deniers, Russian interests and Big Oil, that want to halt the green revolution, no?



💀 < this is the head of someone still waiting for faux climate activists to state which deposit anywhere in the world is an acceptable source for all of the minerals required to complete their utopia.
Well copper is not rare, and it also has less need than other metals due to its value and extremely high rate of recycling.

What we need shouldn't come from places where the byproduct being so toxic affects waterways and water supplies.

Again and again, over and over, YOUR tax dollars and mine get spent to try and clean up the extreme pollution left behind by copper mines.

Perhaps you are fine with that...I'm not!
 
Your arguments continue to be unfounded in any reality. Should we get rid of mortgage interest tax credits because poor people rent and it only benefits "rich" people?
I would be fine with that
 
Well copper is not rare, and it also has less need than other metals due to its value and extremely high rate of recycling.

What we need shouldn't come from places where the byproduct being so toxic affects waterways and water supplies.

Again and again, over and over, YOUR tax dollars and mine get spent to try and clean up the extreme pollution left behind by copper mines.

Perhaps you are fine with that...I'm not!
Just out of curiosity what do you think of the mines where they get the materials to produce solar panels and batteries?
 
If a subsidized solar panel on a roof reduces demand and increases supply for power, how does that not do the EXACT same thing that the AG and OG subsidies do? You seem to be ignoring basic economic theory of supply and demand. Can't have it both ways.

Believe it or not, some people do things, like install solar on their homes, for reasons other than their own bottom line or financial gain. Yeah, I know hard for some to believe, but I'd be much more money ahead if I just bought tags like a vast majority do, and skipped all the advocacy and donations for public lands, wildlife, habitat, etc.

For what I spent a couple weeks back on fuel and lunch to testify against raising NR application fees, I could have purchased a general elk tag, a cow tag, and had enough left over to top off the fuel tank to get me where I need to go to fill them. Plus, I would have an extra vacation day to spend hunting as well.

For those that missed it.

Apparently Buzz testified at a meeting. Like others I was unaware of such a thing despite him talking about it non stop in multiple forums. I know, one might ask what a fee testimony has to do with solar panels, but that's your confusion.

Others might be surprised at how Buzz doesn't do things for personal gain, as again in his daily comenting on every forum(except Rokslide for some reason) he talks non stop about his stock portfolio and his personal gains. Again, thise that read Buzz here, I'm sure are shocked to read such things, but desperately trying to impress his betters have caused multiple personality disorder I suppose.


Now, as to the subject.

Years ago Rinella, when discussing the Utah delegation, posed a question about if they look at public land just sitting there being land as being useless because it had no commercial viability or activity on it.

I guess that question has now been expanded to both jerseys.

Considering O&G has claimed its acreage, somehow its "better" to triple up that loss on tge name of "saving the planet"
 
For those that missed it.

Apparently Buzz testified at a meeting. Like others I was unaware of such a thing despite him talking about it non stop in multiple forums. I know, one might ask what a fee testimony has to do with solar panels, but that's your confusion.

Others might be surprised at how Buzz doesn't do things for personal gain, as again in his daily comenting on every forum(except Rokslide for some reason) he talks non stop about his stock portfolio and his personal gains. Again, thise that read Buzz here, I'm sure are shocked to read such things, but desperately trying to impress his betters have caused multiple personality disorder I suppose.


Now, as to the subject.

Years ago Rinella, when discussing the Utah delegation, posed a question about if they look at public land just sitting there being land as being useless because it had no commercial viability or activity on it.

I guess that question has now been expanded to both jerseys.

Considering O&G has claimed its acreage, somehow its "better" to triple up that loss on tge name of "saving the planet"
Give me a guy who is active in addressing lawmakers and policy makers and I think they are worth hearing from even if I disagree with their take.

Still new here but sure seems like some individuals have axes to grind against other members here.

And the solution to the "worthless with no commercial viability or tax production" discussion is monetizing the value of recreation and wild lands.

Some of that is hard to put a direct number on but more often those who want to eliminate public lands and convert management of public lands towards private benefits are quick to monetize their goals.
 
Your arguments continue to be unfounded in any reality. Should we get rid of mortgage interest tax credits because poor people rent and it only benefits "rich" people?

Mortgage interest is tax deductible, not a tax credit. The increase in the standard deduction to 20k and limits on the mortgage interest tax deduction amounts have only negatively effected the "rich" people. So the mortgage tax deduction is now basically worthless. As it should be.
 
Mortgage interest is tax deductible, not a tax credit. The increase in the standard deduction to 20k and limits on the mortgage interest tax deduction amounts have only negatively effected the "rich" people. So the mortgage tax deduction is now basically worthless. As it should be.
A tax credit and a tax deduction are effectively the same thing, just applied at a different point on the return.

I get your point, but it is an overgeneralization. As a general rule, the standard tax deduction helps lower income people more. They typically don't have accountants and don't have enough deductions to itemize. They may not even have interest on a mortgage. The "rich" still get to itemize and can get a larger deduction if all the pieces add up to an amount larger than the standard deduction. The mortgage tax deduction is far from worthless.
 
A tax credit and a tax deduction are effectively the same thing, just applied at a different point on the return.
Comical statement.
A $1000 tax credit takes $1000 off taxes owed. A $1000 tax deduction is worth $120 if you’re in the 12% tax bracket, $320 if you’re in the 32% bracket. So, “effectively” they are not the same thing at all, unless you live in an alternate universe or AOC is the one trying to explain that statement; either way, that is effectively the same.
 
Last edited:
A tax credit and a tax deduction are effectively the same thing, just applied at a different point on the return.

I get your point, but it is an overgeneralization. As a general rule, the standard tax deduction helps lower income people more. They typically don't have accountants and don't have enough deductions to itemize. They may not even have interest on a mortgage. The "rich" still get to itemize and can get a larger deduction if all the pieces add up to an amount larger than the standard deduction. The mortgage tax deduction is far from worthless.
A tax deduction lowers your adjusted gross income. Your tax liability depends on what tax bracket you are in. A tax credit is a direct reduction in your tax liability. Big difference.
At any rate trumps tax cuts for the rich, made the mortgage interest deduction basically worthless.
Screenshot_20240722_082006_Chrome.jpg
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,668
Messages
2,028,990
Members
36,275
Latest member
johnw3474
Back
Top