Eastoff

[jlprk]

A lot of R&D is a sham tax writeoff. Accountants classify as many expenses as they can into the Research & Development category.

But when government classifies its expenses, it has no such incentive, since it isn't taxed. So in comparison to government R&D, private sector R&D is overstated.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/02/good-news-for-entrepreneurs-on-fiscal-cliff-rd-tax-credit-extended/

You don't understand that R stands for research and D stands for Development?

The grand total of R&D tax credits claimed for 2005 was ~$6B. Chump change. 1/3 of that by companies with less than $1M in assets and 1/2 by companies worth less than $5M.

You're digging a hole. Need a bigger shovel? Maybe some govt. R&D program developed one for you.

As you see, I already spelled out what the acronym designates. As for it being proportionally immaterial, that doesn't change the fact that the private sector has a tax incentive to overstate the amount, and government does not.

 

[jlprk]

Whereas you have no faith in the government and total faith in business and the wealthy, I have no faith in business, the wealthy and very limited faith (almost none) in the government.

Denny, you and I completely and fundamentally disagree. Oh well, at least neither of us have a real say in this sham of a government, so in the end our views are simply musings of the blind.

The government overpays some employees. And almost all rich people are overpaid. That's why they're rich.

I'd like to see everyone make less, to get governent out of debt, especially the rich.

 

[Denny Crane]

Btw, I'd wager that that the bulk of govt. R&D spending is on weapons systems the military doesn't want, the militarization of space, and facilities larger than the Pentagon to house all the data the government is gathering by spying on us.

The NIH budget is $29B. NASA is $18B. Defense R&D plus HHS account for 3/4 of govt. research spending.

 

[Denny Crane]

As you see, I already spelled out what the acronym designates. As for it being proportionally immaterial, that doesn't change the fact that the private sector has a tax incentive to overstate the amount, and government does not.

Magnitude matters. Hence the magnitude of your shovel.

 

[jlprk]

Btw, I'd wager that that the bulk of govt. R&D spending is on weapons systems the military doesn't want, the militarization of space, and facilities larger than the Pentagon to house all the data the government is gathering by spying on us.

The NIH budget is $29B. NASA is $18B. Defense R&D plus HHS account for 3/4 of govt. research spending.

I agree that little government R&D is in consumer applications. There might be some medical technology and technology to improve energy production, both conventional and alternative. But yes, most is military, inapplicable to average people.

P.S. Hey NateBishop!! Are you enjoying my serious posts tonight, replete with big words?? They are just for you!! Now get off my back about it!!

 

[jlprk]

Btw, I'd wager that that the bulk of govt. R&D spending is on weapons systems the military doesn't want, the militarization of space, and facilities larger than the Pentagon to house all the data the government is gathering by spying on us.

The NIH budget is $29B. NASA is $18B. Defense R&D plus HHS account for 3/4 of govt. research spending.

We gentlemen always light up before discussing our little wagers. Pardon me. I seem to have misplaced my match.

 

[Denny Crane]

The energy research money got funneled off into Democratic Party donors' offshore accounts before the companies folded. Solyndra ring a bell?

Al Gore made a fortune off of hawking the global warming hoax then cashing in on carbon credit trading. Meanwhile his house uses more carbon based energy than a small town, and he consumes more fuel for one of his private jet trips than I use in a year.

Yeah. Trust the government.

 

[jlprk]

There’s fresh evidence that the SunShot Initiative, despite being virtually ignored by a mainstream media more interested in faux scandals like Solyndra, might be the most important thing the Obama administration is doing to hasten the U.S. transition away from fossil fuels.

According to new research, if the program hits its goal of bringing the price of solar power down to the level of conventional power by the end of this decade – that would be a 75 percent drop from 2010 to 2020 – solar could provide more than a third of the North American West’s electricity by 2050...

http://www.earthtechling.com/2013/0...ld-deliver-bigtime/?google_editors_picks=true

 

[Denny Crane]

If they buy down the price of gold, we could all be rich!

 

[jlprk]

Well, that link is there to show that government can accomplish good things, specifically, the program you derided that included Solyndra. Some of those investments will produce and a few won't. When you become a rich investor, you'll learn that you can't win 'em all.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, that link is there to show that government can accomplish good things, specifically, the program you derided that included Solyndra. Some of those investments will produce and a few won't. When you become a rich investor, you'll learn that you can't win 'em all.

Government shouldn't pick winners and losers. You hated it when Cheney's former company got contracts, no doubt.

Eastoff's link applies to the government and slick politicians whose interests are in extortion and getting reelected, no?

 

[jlprk]

Halliburton got billions in no-bid contracts. This energy program has a competitive selection process, and awards a lot less per company. Speaking of unilateral decisions, I propose that you change Eastoff's name to Easthoff, because that's how I pronounce it. No need to ask him.

 

[Denny Crane]

Halliburton got billions in no-bid contracts. This energy program has a competitive selection process, and awards a lot less per company. Speaking of unilateral decisions, I propose that you change Eastoff's name to Easthoff, because that's how I pronounce it. No need to ask him.

Too good to be true.

http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/05/...et-no-bid-contracts—how-d-c-corruption-works/

 

[jlprk]

Too good to be true.

http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/05/...et-no-bid-contracts—how-d-c-corruption-works/

It's too good to be true, because there is no comparison to what Republicans did.

1) Halliburton got billions straight up. The current energy program only makes loan guarantees. All companies would have to go belly-up for taxpayers to pay anything. Your article is sleight-of-hand.

2) The connection between Cheney and Halliburton was obvious. He had been one of their top people. As soon as he left to become U.S. Vice President, he gave Halliburton no-bid contracts worth billions. What your article alleges about Obama is nothing. It says that one of the energy companies getting a loan guarantee was BrightSource. Later, its Chairman became U.S. Commerce Secretary. But that was AFTER the decision, so he didn't make it. Cheney became the contract decision-maker BEFORE the government decision to give his former employer billions.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's too good to be true, because there is no comparison to what Republicans did.

1) Halliburton got billions straight up. The current energy program only makes loan guarantees. All companies would have to go belly-up for taxpayers to pay anything. Your article is sleight-of-hand.

2) The connection between Cheney and Halliburton was obvious. He had been one of their top people. As soon as he left to become U.S. Vice President, he gave Halliburton no-bid contracts worth billions. What your article alleges about Obama is nothing. It says that one of the energy companies getting a loan guarantee was BrightSource. Later, its Chairman became U.S. Commerce Secretary. But that was AFTER the decision, so he didn't make it. Cheney became the contract decision-maker BEFORE the government decision to give his former employer billions.

The companies do go out of business. Solyndra ring a bell?

Cheney owned 0 (ZERO) shares of Halliburton by November of 2000. 100% of any options he had left were sold and the proceeds donated to charity.

Your chairman cum ComSec surely owned stock in his company.

You got it backwards.

 

[jlprk]

The companies do go out of business. Solyndra ring a bell?

Cheney owned 0 (ZERO) shares of Halliburton by November of 2000. 100% of any options he had left were sold and the proceeds donated to charity.

Your chairman cum ComSec surely owned stock in his company.

You got it backwards.

Cheney had loyalty to his friends at Halliburton, who owned plenty of stock. They profited from his decision. Plus there was the prospect of working there again someday.

Whether the Commerce Secretary owned stock doesn't matter. He never made the decision to give BrightSource a contract. He wasn't even a government employee yet.

 

[Denny Crane]

Cheney had loyalty to his friends at Halliburton, who owned plenty of stock. They profited from his decision. Plus there was the prospect of working there again someday.

Whether the Commerce Secretary owned stock doesn't matter. He never made the decision to give BrightSource a contract. He wasn't even a government employee yet.

Heil Algore!

No loyalty there?