Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Credit to Firefly

https://t.co/TmuXShR3yE

The fact that Trump is implementing tariffs is a scary omen for the coming year.

It's ok, coal and oil is the future in Trump's America. If you aren't getting blacklung from working in a coal mine, you aren't a true American.

Honestly given Trump's character and manner of thinking I don't think he really notices or cares about issues like energy independence.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's ok, coal and oil is the future in Trump's America. If you aren't getting blacklung from working in a coal mine, you aren't a true American.

"Trump's seemingly trying his best to put the US at the very rear of solar power, while China is prepping itself to be at the front of it. This is going to hurt the US in the decades to come, at least in potential earnings lost.

The US could be at the front of "Made in the USA" when it comes to solar and solar exports, if it wanted."

^ This guy

Originally posted by BackFire
It's ok, coal and oil is the future in Trump's America. If you aren't getting blacklung from working in a coal mine, you aren't a true American.
Hey man, it's clean coal and clean oil. Your lungs will be so clean you'll get tired of them being so clean and cancer-free.

The reason China is at the forefront is because the pollution is already having a bad effect on their cities. The air in Beijing is almost unbreathable.

Unfortunately we will make the same exact mistake and not do anything about it until OUR air becomes unbreathable too.

SO all our Lefty Fascists don't like to buy AMERICAN Made Solar Panels but LOVE to buy them ONLY from other Fascists.

Got it.

I mean I'm right-wing, I just like free trade.

Where as our Lefty FudgeNuts HATE ALL TRADE regardless.

So progressives have a problem with adding a tax on renewable energy made outside the US, but complain we buy oil from outside the US.

Another progressive conundrum.

Originally posted by Blindside12
So progressives have a problem with adding a tax on renewable energy made outside the US, but complain we buy oil from outside the US.

Another progressive conundrum.

Yep. That is what makes our Lefty Fascists True F-Holes.

Originally posted by Blindside12
So progressives have a problem with adding a tax on renewable energy made outside the US, but complain we buy oil from outside the US.

Another progressive conundrum.

Your comparison is really weird and nonsensical.

But if you bothered to read, this is pretty important:"a move that threatens to handicap a $28 billion industry that relies on parts made abroad for 80 percent of its supply"

The industry is reliant on some imported parts to produce the whole, just like most US manufacturers/products, they don't make the product 100%. eg a 90% completed solar-panel is about as useless as a 0% completed unit.

Of coarse its non sensical to you, because it actually makes sense. Nothing wrong with adding a tax, after all, why shouldnt they pay more, we do for American made.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your comparison is really weird and nonsensical.

But if you bothered to read, this is pretty important:"a move that threatens to handicap a $28 billion industry that relies on parts made abroad for 80 percent of its supply"

The industry is reliant on some imported parts to produce the whole, just like most US manufacturers/products, they don't make the product 100%.

Robbie could take his own advice on that Reading Part.

And Boo Hoo. Some Poor Old Billionaire like Al Gore having to not be as MEGA RICH
!

BOO HOO!

Originally posted by Blindside12
Of coarse its non sensical to you, because it actually makes sense. Nothing wrong with adding a tax, after all, why shouldnt they pay more, we do for American made.

It actually doesn't, it's you mixing irrelevant issues and trying for a "gotcha!" moment. Anyhow, reality:

I'd say possibly crippling a US industry that's been steadily growing for years and the possible loss of "tens of thousands" of US job as something that in wrong and outright harmful to the US economy.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Of coarse its non sensical to you, because it actually makes sense. Nothing wrong with adding a tax, after all, why shouldnt they pay more, we do for American made.

Because it makes it harder for us to get the parts needed to manufacture the stuff lmao

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Because it makes it harder for us to get the parts needed to manufacture the stuff lmao

The increased cost is also then transferred onto the consumer in the final product. Even more-so if supply is affected.

ie He'll be paying more for those US made solar panels when he decides to redo his house, if he can find any to begin with. Which I'm sure he's totally cool with or something

I mean Trump talks a lot about how he wants to face down China but then makes moves that directly help China get ahead of us just so he can put "made in America" on his campaign ads lmfao.

Can you explain how adding a tax on Chinese solar cells helps them?

And he's keeping his word with this and the current investigation that is coming to a conclusion regarding left of intellectual property. Which most likely will be resulting in a very large fine on China for it. Also he slapped a 30% tax on Samsung washer and dryers at the same time he put this tax on foreign renewalable energy.

Originally posted by Robtard
The increased cost is also then transferred onto the consumer in the final product. Even more-so if supply is affected.

ie He'll be paying more for those US made solar panels when he decides to redo his house, if he can find any to begin with. Which I'm sure he's totally cool with or something

Actually that's not how micro economics work. They will in turn have to raise their prices which will make American manufacturing more competitive.

Competitive when the solar panels can't be made in the first place or made cheaply? Alright, you're done here.

I have American made solar panels. Sorry, you are done here.

Originally posted by Blindside12
I have American made solar panels. Sorry, you are done here.

Not ones built under these new tariffs, those are several years old by now. Unless you traveled to the future, bought replacements and came back.

Nice try though, but do expect to pay a lot more when you need replacements. #maga

Sorry but you don't know as much as you think you do, about everything, like you claim to about everything.

Thanks for caring about my pocketbook. But mine are under warranty for 25 years. Nice try

I know the panels on your house are several years old now, as I remember a few years ago when we spoke about it

I know that these tariffs haven't been implemented just yet

I know that just the threat of these tariffs have caused in uptick in prices on solar panels and related equipment in the US

I know that a warranty is useless if the given company goes out of business #maga

2 years old, now you are assuming the longest running solar manufacturer Sunpower is going out of business. What gives you that impression #mriknoweverything

Anyhow, your trying to confuse the issue with nonsense aside, this isn't a good thing for US solar/renewable energy industry. Remove your Rose-Colored-Trumper-Glasses

"Tens of thousands" of US jobs lost is a bad thing. Consumers having to pay more for solar is a bad thing. Hell, those unemployed Solar industry people can't even go back to the coal industry, as coal is going more and more automated. #maga

ps You can directly thank Obama for your Sunpower equipment. #thanksobama

Remove your Trump bias glasses that everything under the sun is his fault. It's starting to get annoying. #mriknoweverything

Originally posted by Blindside12
Remove your Trump bias glasses that everything under the sun is his fault. It's starting to get annoying. #mriknoweverything

Um, how is this issue not Trump's fault? Was he mind-controlled? Forced? Threatened against his will? Explain.

On Monday, Trump approved duties of as much as 30 percent on solar equipment made outside the U.S., a move that threatens to handicap a $28 billion industry that relies on parts made abroad for 80 percent of its supply. -snip

ps You should really thank Obama for your solar. Just common courtesy

It's ironic you care about this but didn't care about the Solyndra Scandal.

Your bias is clear and well established.

PS. I never claimed the tax credit or used it for my panels. Wrong again.

Originally posted by Blindside12
It's ironic you care about this but didn't care about the Solyndra Scandal.

Your bias is clear and well established.

Nah Trump's policy is far more impactful, it covers the entire industry not a single startup lol

Which you know what about exactly? Lol

The sky is always falling if Trump's involved lol

Originally posted by Blindside12
It's ironic you care about this but didn't care about the Solyndra Scandal.

Your bias is clear and well established.

PS. I never claimed the tax credit or used it for my panels. Wrong again.

When did I say this? Did you even know me in 2011ish? How is that even comparable?

Seems like you're doing a "but Obama!", because you can't defend Trump here.

ps Right, because you hate money

But you just said I should thank Obama and brought him up first. Now your claiming I'm doing "but Obama" when that's exactly what you did before I even mentioned him.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Which you know what about exactly? Lol

The sky is always falling if Trump's involved lol

You're not really responding to anything at this point.

honestly, the issue of the environment alone warrants voting against Trump in 2020, easily the biggest issue facing America or really any country in the world.

Weird, air quality keeps getting better in the US despite the unending "Trump, the sky is falling!" Comments from the ignorant.

Quote me where I said I trust politians on the environment? How's that gas powered vehicle you drive though for the environment Mr. Eco Friendly Guy?

I thought leftists supported taxes?

They should be happy the Government is getting its cut.

Tesla can't even make 100 Model 3 cars and get them delivered. You are very uniformed. GM was the pioneer with the Ev-1 and Volt on a mass produced eletric car, not telsa. But it's typical that a latte sipping austinite college guy like yourself would go straight to praise telsa, who's business only exists because of goverment subsidies and tax payer money to even be operating.

Emperordmb:

Do liberals generally support protectionism? (In general. Not a criticism of your own beliefs.)


The way I see it, the environment is important to leftists. But so is poverty.

Imports contribute to poverty by taking away work that can be done locally.

Therefore, many leftists should support protectionism, because it helps reduce poverty.

You want "clean" energy in our current state of technology, go nuclear.

Although I really dig tidal energy sources. Solar energy great for your home, terrible for the enviroment and birds pick your poison.

Originally posted by snowdragon
You want "clean" energy in our current state of technology, go nuclear.

Although I really dig tidal energy sources. Solar energy great for your home, terrible for the enviroment and birds pick your poison.

You're right.

A professor wrote an Op-Ed about the subject, and how he stood right in front of the air vents of a power plant to prove a point.

Turns out he disappointed his anti-nuclear students, who told him "You shouldn't have done that".

The takeaway was whether it was safe or not didn't even matter. Politics.

How are those cars charged.................when solar panels are made or destroyed what happens to the meterials used in them, is it safe to just pour into the ground?

Originally posted by cdtm
Emperordmb:

Do liberals generally support protectionism? (In general. Not a criticism of your own beliefs.)


The way I see it, the environment is important to leftists. But so is poverty.

Imports contribute to poverty by taking away work that can be done locally.

Therefore, many leftists should support protectionism, because it helps reduce poverty. The environment has nothing to do with leftists or identity politics. Global warming is the White Walkers to the north and everything else is trivial Westeros bullshit. We all have to live here, even Republicans.

The vast majority of the people who voted for Trump live outside urban areas who live a more sustainable life then the Democrats who live in the cities surviving off the food those evil Republicans provide for them. Fly, you literally have no clue what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Those base modles they can't even get made. How about you do some research. Or on how bad they treat their employees, work them 12-15 hours a day and pay them crappy and won't let unions in their plants.

You really are a fraud environmentalist. Tesla leads America in sales of electric vehicles. There were only slight delays in deliveries and manufacturing. But 2017 was a record breaking year for electric vehicles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/cars/2017/10/tesla-gm-lead-the-pack-when-it-comes-to-selling-evs-to-america/%3famp=1

Bad treatment of employees is another matter.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Tesla leads America in sales of electric vehicles. There were only slight delays in deliveries and manufacturing. But 2017 was a record breaking year for electric vehicles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/cars/2017/10/tesla-gm-lead-the-pack-when-it-comes-to-selling-evs-to-america/%3famp=1

Bad treatment of employees is another matter.

Telsas average price range is $75,000. I thought you hated the rich and the rich getting richer. Which is exactly what Tesla represents. Getting the tax dollars from the poor to subsidies the rich. You should hate everything telsa stands for. But you love them just another uniformed latte sipping college guy.

Originally posted by Blindside12
The free market dictates what's viable, government decided Tesla is viable, enough they are not. They can't make money. They survive off government taxes. The same thing you say you hate.

In the wild west of capitalism there is probably little argument against that.

I would also argue that the govt picks far to many winners and losers so capitalism has taken a swing from free market to controling the govt....which isn't a "free market."

So where does that leave us?

Originally posted by Firefly218
The environment has nothing to do with leftists or identity politics. Global warming is the White Walkers to the north and everything else is trivial Westeros bullshit. We all have to live here, even Republicans.

I disagree.

The environment should not be an excuse to abandon social justice. You can do both.

You didn't even answer my question, just attacked me. What does management mean?

Nice caveat. Tesla still on top in US electric vehicle sales, GM close behind

Nice of you to leave that out. It's also interesting how GM is right behind them even though Tesla's fleet is all eletric, GMs is not.


Telsas average price range is $75,000. I thought you hated the rich and the rich getting richer. Which is exactly what Tesla represents. Getting the tax dollars from the poor to subsidies the rich. You should hate everything telsa stands for. But you love them just another uniformed latte sipping college guy.

Here we go. Let's talk about Africa, because it's the one place anyone can find a plausable argument to bolster their losing one here. The African argument is where any progressive goes when they are losing a domestic argument.

Originally posted by cdtm
Emperordmb:

Do liberals generally support protectionism? (In general. Not a criticism of your own beliefs.)


The way I see it, the environment is important to leftists. But so is poverty.

Imports contribute to poverty by taking away work that can be done locally.

Therefore, many leftists should support protectionism, because it helps reduce poverty.
Well it depends on what you mean by liberal. If you're talking about social liberals, then I could see them being fans of protectionist policy.

Classical liberals however adhere more to economic liberalism than social liberals do, which makes them right-wing economically as opposed to their left-wing social liberal counterparts, and part of economic liberalism is valuing free trade.

Classical liberals and social liberals pretty much hold the same principles when it comes to social policy, ie. the liberty of the individual should be protected first and foremost, however classical liberals extend those principles to economics which makes them economically right-wing, whereas social liberals are much more in favor of left-wing economics.

Originally posted by Blindside12
Nice caveat. Tesla still on top in US electric vehicle sales, GM close behind

Nice of you to leave that out. It's also interesting how GM is right behind them even though Tesla's fleet is all eletric, GMs is not.


Telsas average price range is $75,000. I thought you hated the rich and the rich getting richer. Which is exactly what Tesla represents. Getting the tax dollars from the poor to subsidies the rich. You should hate everything telsa stands for. But you love them just another uniformed latte sipping college guy.

The inconvenient truth you want to avoid.

Cause heads, root of our problems.

So unless you believe that everyone should own a car, an electric car when in the very same timeline we are looking at self driven cars then how does this help with reducing polution/energy usage?

https://www.tesla.com/support/incentives

That credit is not just for Tesla cars, it's for electric cars in general and some hybrids

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml

And since their business is 100% electric they survive of that tax credit. As usual, you have to disagree with me on something. Can't ever agree on anything.

Originally posted by Blindside12
And since their business is 100% electric they survive of that tax credit. As usual, you have to disagree with me on something. Can't ever agree on anything. The tax credits are to encourage people to abandon harmful gas vehicles and go for cheaper advantageous clean energy vehicles. What is your issue with that?

Originally posted by Firefly218
The tax credits are to encourage people to abandon harmful gas vehicles and go for cheaper advantageous clean energy vehicles. What is your issue with that?

Practice what you preach. That's my issue.

Originally posted by Blindside12
And since their business is 100% electric they survive of that tax credit. As usual, you have to disagree with me on something. Can't ever agree on anything.

Huh? The credit goes to the buyer, as a means to make all electric cars more desirable.

The tax credit is actually more of a incentive** to people buying the 30K Nissan Leaf, than the person dropping 95k for the Tesla or electric BMW. Considering the typical buyer of a Nissan Leaf and the typical buyer of a Tesla and the tax brackets they're in. ie Very few Tesla (and other high-end eCars) buyers buy because of the tax credit, it's all in all 'small change' to them, sure it's nice, but it's not what makes or breaks the deal for them when they decide to trade their Mercedes S500 for a Tesla.

**With the Tesla 3, that could change, as a 7k or so tax break on a 45kcar is a big deal and it will make those sort of buyers really consider. But the T3 is off to a rocky start.

I do wonder about Tesla's future though, they nigh consistently post loses, yet their stock share prices are more inline with a tech company than an auto manufacturer. It seems the company is supported on hopes and dreams and Elon Musk's will (and ability to BS) alone.

Originally posted by Robtard
Huh? The credit goes to the buyer, as a means to make all electric cars more desirable.

The tax credit is actually more of a incentive** to people buying the 30K Nissan Leaf, than the person dropping 95k for the Tesla or electric BMW. Considering the typical buyer of a Nissan Leaf and the typical buyer of a Tesla and the tax brackets they're in. ie Very few Tesla (and other high-end eCars) buyers buy because of the tax credit, it's all in all 'small change' to them, sure it's nice, but it's not what makes or breaks the deal for them when they decide to trade their Mercedes S500 for a Tesla.

**With the Tesla 3, that could change, as a 7k or so tax break on a 45kcar is a big deal and it will make those sort of buyers really consider. But the T3 is off to a rocky start.

I do wonder about Tesla's future though, they nigh consistently post loses, yet their stock share prices are more inline with a tech company than an auto manufacturer. It seems the company is supported on hopes and dreams and Elon Musk's will (and ability to BS) alone.

We agree, but let's not forget for a second, those rich people certainly do use that tax credit which is born off the backs of the poor.

That's an unfair assessment, as the tax credit is for all electric cars and some hybrids. You'd have a point if the credit was only for say electric cars that cost over 85K.

If poorer people want to use the credit to buy into the future, that's great, but if your going to drop 100k on a car, you don't need a $7500 break. Why should the tax credit to apply to those who have enough to buy a $75-100k car? And save it for the less fortunate and give them more. Maybe a $15k break instead of $7500. This is common liberal logic.

Good lord, you're in a mood. If you're proposing the the law be changed to cut off at a certain price point, sure, that could be argued. But when the law was written it was just to push for the sale of electric all around.

I've also not checked, but Trump's tax reform might have killed it as it was initially on the chopping block as one of things to go. Cos Trump hates anything not coal apparently.

Yeah, and that's due in large part to the EPA regulations implemented in the 70s-90s period. Trump is moving to defang and disband that agency, by the way.


No, this isn't right. Tariffs increase poverty by making prices higher for consumers, the most active of which are the poor. Jobs saved in noncompetitive industries do not make up for that, and there is evidence that tariffs actually cost more jobs than they save. For example, Obama in 2009 implemented tariffs to protect domestic producers of tires from cheap imports, like Trump is doing currently with a far broader range of products. And now? Even liberal outlets like CNN are ready to denounce it as economically harmful, due to a study by the Peterson Insitute of International Economics, which showed that the move lost more jobs than it saved and hurt the economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/03/news/economy/obama-china-tire-tariff/index.html



This would explain why Obama became more pro-free trade as his term went on. For although there can be negative effects on some sectors from free trade, those can be offset by the economic growth produced and by targeted government action. Protectionism and tariffs are not the way to go, and Trump is ignoring lessons of the past.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good lord, you're in a mood.

That might be my fault. I wasn't having his shit and he may still be upset at me for it.



TI, do you want an apology from me? I don't want you to be upset. I want everything to be okay and I will swallow my pride if a sincere apology helps.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good lord, you're in a mood. If you're proposing the the law be changed to cut off at a certain price point, sure, that could be argued. But when the law was written it was just to push for the sale of electric all around.

I've also not checked, but Trump's tax reform might have killed it as it was initially on the chopping block as one of things to go. Cos Trump hates anything not coal apparently.

Mood? Again, your projecting.

When Obama was on the coal train, going to all the coal town saying he's bringing back coal. What did you say then?

Can you provide any quotes from yourself over the past 8 years criticizing that as to remain looking unbais and without Animus?

The hell are you on about? Obama did initially push for "clean coal", then backed away early because the promising provisions on energy-to-pollution levels he was told where not met (could not be me?)t and as a candidate he had previously and repeatedly made the campaign promise of imposing a 'cap and trade' system set on cutting greenhouse gases by X amount (I forget the figure, but it was high) in the US.

So your narrative is again whacked. Obama was pro-coal at first, but with set conditions.

So he had no clue about the promises he was making. Made them, then broke them. Sounds about right.

Still waiting on you giving citations to your criticism of him trying to bring back coal. Which you gave when Trump did the same thing.

FFS, however you need to spin it to make yourself feel correct I guess

It's not spin. He made the same promises then broke them. Why can't you just admit that? Why is "ffs" when pointing out any thing that doesn't make Obama look good?