These arguments on both sides are absurd.
Meet the Apple: Solar panels. (PV) are a consumer product for a very narrow market. They primarily make fiscal sense only in non-grid tied rural homes where the cost of connecting to the said grid approaches that of the panels themselves. And remote low amperage power situations like traffic signals, radio/cellular sites, well pumps, and satellites.
Meet the Orange: Commercial generation (from any source) is mass market only. Lends itself well to the interests of large industry and their supporting industry, and of course their lobbyists and the politicians they support/feed/coddle.
There is no comparison. PV panel subsidies and tax breaks are - as said previously - simply a political stunt. If you must argue about the merits of renewable energy vs fossil fuel (which is the apparent elephant in the room) then it's really down to nuclear, coal, and natural gas VS hydro, wind, and the one technology that actually has the potential to replace our current mass generation system- solar thermal. (yes Virginia, solar thermal works when it's dark too)
What we should be asking is why none of our politicians are working to subsidise a mass generation technology that would work. Not pointing fingers (ok - I am) but the money and lobbyists belong to the current, and disgustingly profitable fossil fuel industry. The solar thermal plants belong to startups, universities and a couple of local governments. Who do you think will win?