backtop


Print 131 comment(s) - last by woody1.. on Oct 30 at 5:51 PM

Fisker and Tesla attack apparent inaccuracies in the Republican candidate's op ed

U.S. Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney continues to make few friends in the American auto industry on Tuesday.  In the wake of the scandal surrounding the Obama administration's half-billion-dollar loan to failed solar company Solyndra, Mr. Romney seized the opportunity to attack the billion dollars in loans [1][2] given to Tesla Motor Comp. (TSLA) and Fisker Automotive, Inc. in an opinion editorial in the OC Register.

I. Romney Accuses Obama and DOE of Cronyism

In the piece Mr. Romney writes:

Alas, like Solyndra, these loans are turning out to be historic opportunities to line the pockets of major campaign fundraisers. Fisker investors, including Al Gore himself, have donated more than $1 million to political campaigns – primarily Democrats. Tesla, for its part, has financial backing from a fundraiser who bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for the President's campaign; Tesla's CEO is also a major Democratic donor who has poured money into Obama's campaign coffers.

Tesla's next vehicle is expected to list for $57,400. Fisker's car, already a year behind schedule, will cost $97,000. "We have a history of losses and we expect significant increases in our costs and expenses to result in continuing losses for at least the foreseeable future," says Tesla's most recent quarterly filing.

And neither firm has created many jobs. So far, approximately 100 workers are employed by Fisker in Wilmington, Del., while an additional 500 are actually assembling the cars in Finland. Tesla's record is only slightly better. Even these few jobs may be illusory: studies of Europe's green job experiments have found that each new green job destroys several other jobs elsewhere in the economy.

The former Amway Corp. executive and governor of Massachussetts has called for a probe examining the green loans and possible preferential treatment given to firms which were backed by investors (including Al Gore, a Fisker investor) who had funded President Obama's 2008 victory and his pending 2012 reelection bid.  He points to a report by the Government Accountability Office that complained that the government "treated applicants inconsistently, favoring some and disadvantaging others."  Indeed some firms have leveled similar complaints against the administration in the past.

Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney, 2012 Republican presidential candidate [Source: AP]

He adds, "But there are larger lessons from this sorry story. First, the U.S. government shouldn't be playing venture capitalist. It's not merely that government bureaucrats are bad at picking winners. The very process invites cronyism and outright corruption."

II. Romney Has Long Attacked Bailout of GM and Chrysler

Tesla and Fisker weren't the only auto companies to face the wrath of the former Amway chief.  In 2008, Mitt Romney blasted the decision of outgoing Republican President George W. Bush to give bailouts to U.S. automakers, and leveled even more pointed criticism at the bailout plans by the [then] new Democratic President Barack Obama.

He prophesied doom for General Motors (GM) Chrysler Group LLC in an editorial entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt", which ran in The New York Times

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

In the piece he wrote:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

Mr. Romney earns credit for sticking to guns.  Despite Chrysler and GM, both recovering and posting profits [1][2] for the first time in years, earning high quality marks in recent surveys, and repaying some of their government debts (albeit leaving the government with multi-billion dollar shortfalls), Mr. Romney was unenthusiastic about the results.

In June he commented:

Ultimately the car companies did go through a managed bankruptcy and they shed some of the excess debt, some of the excess burdens of their distribution system and some of the excess costs that had been imposed by the UAW over the years and so I'm pleased that process was carried out.

It would have been best not to have had the president and government put their hands on the bankruptcy process ... Bailouts are not the answer.

When you have a government spending massively more than it takes in as President Obama's government has done, you say to anybody thinking of investing in America, whether an entrepreneur or a country, that they don't know what the future is going to be for the value of that currency.

Interestingly, much of Mr. Romney's family fortune came thanks to American Motor Company, where his father George Romney was briefly chief.  The senior Romney also made a run at the White House, though it proved unsuccesful.  Chrysler bought up the remains of American Motor Company after its slow death in the 1980s.  The Jeep brand is a continuation of AMC's popular crossover lineup from the 1970s (rebranded from its original "Medallion" brand name).

Tesla and Fisker were understandably irrate about the op-ed.

III. Tesla, Fisker, and DOE Chastise Romney for Inaccuracies

In an interview with The Detroit News, Tesla spokesperson Ricardo Reyes commented, "[It is] unfortunate that Gov. Romney is using Tesla as a political tool and he's wrong. We're creating American jobs."

And he says that Tesla is a publicly traded company, remarking, "We're not hiding anything."

Tesla has long been on the defensive about its history of loans and losses.  Tesla points out that it's attempting to do something historic -- become the first new major publicly owned American auto manufacturer in the last century.  In order to finance the development of an mid-level luxury priced electric vehicle, suitable for a broader market that its original $109K USD EV sportscar, Tesla has had to go deeply into debt.  Tesla's Model S will hit the market next year.

Model S
Tesla's Model S (front) races past the Tesla Roadster [Source: Tesla]

Fisker likewise took issue with Mr. Romney's remarks.  Fisker spokesman Roger Ormisher said Mr. Romney's numbers were inaccurate -- that Fisker already has created 700 U.S. jobs, not 100.  He adds, "There is no link between Fisker Automotive and any political party. We are politically neutral - our focus is on building luxury electric vehicles.  We don't want to get in the middle of a political debate.  We are an American car company."

Fisker is perhaps in a worse position than Tesla, in that it is only now delivering its first product, the Fisker Karma EV sportscar, after numerous delays.  The large EV has also received criticism for getting relatively poor gas mileage, though some have aptly pointed out that this is due to its large size similar large-frame EVs or hybrid sports cars get similarly poor gas mileage.

Like Tesla, Fisker is currently cooking up a mass market vehicle.  It will start production of the mass market "Nina" in its new plant in Delaware in 2013.

Fisker says that Mr. Romney mistakenly believed that the loan money was being employed to build the Fisker Karma, which is build mostly in Finland.  This is incorrect they say.  The loan money is being used to finance the plant to build the U.S.-made Nina.

The U.S. Department of Energy also defended the loans.  Spokesman Dan Leistikow says the $25B USD loaned to the U.S. auto industry is "helping America compete for and win the auto manufacturing jobs of the future."  He writes:

Two years ago, critics said we shouldn't be investing in American auto manufacturing because the industry wouldn't survive.  They were wrong then and they're wrong today. From well-established names like Ford to innovative startups like Tesla and Fisker, America's auto industry is being reinvented, and the Department's loan program is helping play an important role.

Fisker's production schedule was delayed by regulatory issues that were outside of its control, but the company has successfully raised more than $650 million in private sector investment to support its ongoing operations since closing its DOE loan.  While the vehicles themselves are being assembled in Fisker's existing overseas facility, the department's funding was only used for the U.S. operations. The money could not be, and was not, spent on overseas operations.

IV. Romney Embraced Campaign Contributions From Bailout Banks

Despite the apparent factual inaccuracies in his commentary, Mr. Romney raises some good points about cronyism's role in federal politics and whether $1B USD in loans is worth it to create a few hundred "green jobs".

Unfortunately, his commentary also has two substantial flaws, factual inaccuracies aside.

First, it ignores the fact that developing electric vehicles is somewhat of a national security issue for the U.S. as it allows America to remove itself from foreign oil, which tends to come from volatile, hostile regions like the Middle East and Venezuela.  Once EVs gain a signficant minority market share, the U.S. should be able to cut ties with these suppliers and solely rely on safer foreign oil sources like Canada.

Second, Mr. Romney's commentary is somewhat ironic given his own ties to firms that received bailout money.  Mr. Romney has kept relatively quiet about the bank bailouts, perhaps because he has accepted large contributions from many of the banks that found themselves on the government's payroll.

DailyTech uncovered a report on OpenSecrets, which shows many "bailout banks" such as JP Morgan Chase & Comp. (JPM), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), and Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) gave generous contributions to Mr. Romney's campaign.

In fact Mr. Romney's list of top corporate donors reads like a "who's who" of bailout banks.  Four of his top ten contributors, and seven of his top twenty corporate contributors were bailed out banks.

No banker left behind
Mr. Romney's campaign contributions list is a veritable who's who of bailout banks
[Source: Technorati]

Either Mr. Romney is oblivious to where his campaign money is coming from, or his stand against the automotive bailouts is simply political rhetoric.  Given that the bank bailout was much bigger and did not save American manufacturing, but rather negated the losses of big investors who made risky investments, this position should be examined carefully.

Sources: OC Register, The New York Times, Reuters, Open Secrets



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Tech? Politics...
By Raiders12 on 10/26/2011 1:02:24 PM , Rating: 5
OK...well this is just further evidence that we have a broke system. Occupying Wall St wont help. We need to occupy the White House lawn and Congress footsteps. These jokers, ALL OF THEM, take take take from corporations AND the American people. Nobody is protesting:

-$14.5 trillion debt
-$7 trillion in debt interest since 1987
-+$300 BILLION annually on debt service
-Annual TRILLION $$ deficits
-Transfer of wealth abroad
-Transfer of American jobs to foreign nations, only to sell us our products back

Sorry, it isn't Bush's fault, its Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama. They helped SELL OUT AMERICA.




RE: Tech? Politics...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/26/2011 1:06:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
OK...well this is just further evidence that we have a broke system. Occupying Wall St wont help. We need to occupy the White House lawn and Congress footsteps. These jokers, ALL OF THEM, take take take from corporations AND the American people. Nobody is protesting:

-$14.5 trillion debt
-$7 trillion in debt interest since 1987
-+$300 BILLION annually on debt service
-Annual TRILLION $$ deficits
-Transfer of wealth abroad
-Transfer of American jobs to foreign nations, only to sell us our products back

Sorry, it isn't Bush's fault, its Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama. They helped SELL OUT AMERICA.

Good comment. That was my point, in so many words.

Everyone is pointing fingers at the other guy, but if you really look into things and do your research, they're all in the same big corrupt scheme together, albeit on different ends of it.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Raiders12 on 10/26/2011 1:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
Only one person has a consistent voting history and well representation of American citizens. Many deem him nuts. I deem him a real representative.

Dr.Ron Paul

Reading his website and many books, many Americans would agree with his philosophies for restoring America, yet they call him a lunatic. I'm sorry but the last 30-40 yrs of Governing is the real crime and lunacy


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Tequilasunriser on 10/26/2011 1:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't agree with some of his conservative social views, but I think he's the best candidate for us financially.

While both social and financial aspects are important we need to fix one thing at a time, and the economy gets #1 priority. For that task Paul seems like our best bet.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/26/2011 1:37:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't agree with some of his conservative social views, but I think he's the best candidate for us financially.

While both social and financial aspects are important we need to fix one thing at a time, and the economy gets #1 priority. For that task Paul seems like our best bet

Conservative social views????

Are you kidding me. He supports legalize drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_o...

That's hardly "conservative" socially.

He's a financial conservative, but a social "liberal". Just like the founding fathers, and just like most Americans with common sense.

The man has a lot of good ideas and seems to be one of the few who hasn't sold his soul to the political machine. Sadly he probably stands no chance in 2012.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Samus on 10/26/2011 2:04:13 PM , Rating: 4
All you gotta know about this guy is he used to run Amway.

Therefore, he has screwed more Americans than the banks and government combined ;)


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ringold on 10/26/2011 4:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
That was an add one to pick out. He was with Bain Capital, which had a LOT of companies under its umbrella.

I've always had a hard time feeling sympathy for people that complain about payday lenders. The interest rates are such obvious rape that, well, if people want to get bent over voluntarily, then who are we to stop them?


RE: Tech? Politics...
By JediJeb on 10/26/2011 5:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
Pay day loans really are nothing short of legal loan sharking.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By aharris02 on 10/26/2011 2:12:10 PM , Rating: 5
On that note, take a look at his list of campaign contributors.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N...

For those who won't click, the top 3:

US Air Force $23,437
US Army $23,053
US Navy $16,973

The numbers are small, but the top 3 donors make me think, "wow, three branches of the military comprise his 'top 3 donors' spots, and people don't take him seriously?"

Hey Jason, maybe DailyTech could take a more active role in helping revert the R.Paul media blackout?


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Raiders12 on 10/26/2011 2:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
Hehehe, stop oncovering cold hard truths and stats. Logic escapes many. Against the other GOP "candidates" he brings in 71% of the Vets donations. Against the almighty Obama, that number hovers at 50%. Hmmm pretty odd seeing how everyone clamors that he is for 0 defense. [Ignorance]


RE: Tech? Politics...
By aharris02 on 10/26/2011 9:10:25 PM , Rating: 4
Yup. Most people don't realize that Ron Paul were a character in an RPG, he'd have 100 defense. 0 offense, but 100 defense still has its place.

I'm not one to support backing down from genuine, factually-supported threats, but right now we're in desperate need of fixing stuff at home. With that considered, I think 100 defense and 0 offense could do us real solid for half a decade or so.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Raiders12 on 10/26/2011 2:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
The problem many have with him is he believes in THE INDIVIDUAL BEING ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS/HER OWN ACTIONS. That is a viewpoint and mentality that doesnt sit well with current-gen Americans from the Govt down to a factory worker. Not to generalize, but its ultimately why we are in the mess we are in. We are overly reliant on the Centralized governmental BEAST that cant even manage itself, yet we want them to take care of more and more and more aspects of our lives. PLEASE UNCLE SAM, TELL ME WHAT CAR TO OWN, TV TO BUY, AND WHERE TO GET FOOD.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2011 5:17:28 PM , Rating: 4
No most Americans believe in personal accountability. The problem is more and more young people are being taught NOT to be accountable. That everything that is bad that happens is someone else's fault. In todays hard times as well, everyone see's a quick and easy payoff by sacrificing their integrity and blaming others for their problems.

Ron Paul's problem is his horrible foreign policy. Where he believes that America is responsible for 9/11 happening, that we should have no military forces overseas anywhere, and essentially be isolationists. A policy that showed its futility after the first World War.

His economic and fiscal policies are what makes him hated by Democrats. His foreign policy is what makes him disliked by most conservatives. Now granted I'd much rather have him in charge than someone like Mitt Romney because his foreign policy goals will never happen. And his fiscal policies are what we need. As far as his social policy, I largely agree with him from the mindset that the federal government shouldn't be in charge of all aspects of our lives and to return those powers to the people and the states. State governments are far more in tune with their populations wishes and desires. If a state wants to pay for universal healthcare, that's their right. But that decision shouldn't impact the other 49 states.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Raiders12 on 10/26/2011 5:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. But one MAJOR instance of personal responsibility is America's obesity rate sitting at 65%. Type II Diabetes will be our country's largest killer by 2035, and an estimated 35% will have it. Its a disease that is self-curable and caused by LIFESTYLE. Yet everyone screams they want healthcare subsidized and ran by the Govt. Well I for one dont want to pay for people who have to hit up Docs for blood pressure, cholesterol, and heart meds because they cant run 1/4 mile or walk a mile once or twice a week. Thats just one small case. Off topic, but I agree with you on your statements regarding Ron Paul. He is simply OUR BEST CHOICE right now. Obama? Pffft, his last 2 landmark decisions (Iraq withdrawal and Student loan debt) are continuation of Bush's agreements/policies. Anyone who thinks he is different is very, very ignorant.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By FITCamaro on 10/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ryrod on 10/26/2011 6:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong. Most Americans strongly opposed Obamacare. They did it anyway. And then have the balls to say that Republicans don't care what the people think.


That's not necessarily true. Favor and opposition polls were split and depended primarily upon the wording of the poll and the sources of information from which polled individuals received their information. Many polls that found opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were based upon questions such as: "Do you think the government should take over the health care system?" Polls that found support for the PPACA favorable were often conducted based upon asking individuals about their support for specific provisions listed in the PPACA. So ultimately, the polling comes down to the bias of the questions and taking into account that bias, people are typically split with no side garnering more than 60% in favor or opposition.

quote:
And I know he'd sign anything that conservatives in the House can get through the Senate that actually would stimulate the economy. So long as its not riddled with pork.


It's been proven time and time again that spending by the Federal government does more to help stimulate the economy than tax cuts or any other form of "economic stimulus." Some of what you call "pork" does actually help the economy. It all depends on people's perspective as to what constitutes "pork." A guy in CA is going to call building a turnpike in eastern PA "pork barrel" spending. However, people who see a benefit in eastern PA are not going to see it that way. It depends largely on perspective. Now I will grant you that there are some "pork" projects that are ridiculous, but those are touted far more than the much more prevalent reasonable "pork" projects.

quote:
Bush didn't say all troops would be gone from Iraq because that would be silly. Bush couldn't forsee the future. So he didn't commit to a 100% withdrawl. Only an end to combat operations. Al Queda and the PLO will be running Iraq within a year with the help of Iran. Obama fails again on foreign policy.


Actually, yeah Bush did say that all troops would be gone from Iraq by December, 31 2011. That was included in the Status of Forces Agreement from 2008. Specifically it states in Article 24, "All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011." Furthermore, we are there at the will of the Iraqi government. We did not have UN permission to invade Iraq and we were acting in violation of international law. So blaming Obama for not upholding a treaty is just wrong and saying he fails in foreign policy by failing to start another war in Iraq with a legitimate government is just biased with no basis in fact.

quote:
What student loan debt decision are you referring to? Them nationalizing all student loans last year? One of the worst things to happen yet. Why should the government be the sole source of funding for kids going to college who can't afford it on their own? How long until the government is approving or disapproving loans based on what school you go to or what you want to study?


This is also wrong. The government has not nationalized student loans. You are still able to and mostly required to get a private lender for your student loan debt. Banks/lenders selling some of the debt to the US for a profit does not make it a nationalization. I don't know why every time there are regulations put in place, people cry foul and say the government is taking over. It didn't happen with healthcare and it didn't happen with student loans.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By FITCamaro on 10/27/2011 8:09:02 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's not necessarily true. Favor and opposition polls were split and depended primarily upon the wording of the poll and the sources of information from which polled individuals received their information. Many polls that found opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were based upon questions such as: "Do you think the government should take over the health care system?" Polls that found support for the PPACA favorable were often conducted based upon asking individuals about their support for specific provisions listed in the PPACA. So ultimately, the polling comes down to the bias of the questions and taking into account that bias, people are typically split with no side garnering more than 60% in favor or opposition.


That's because when its worded as, "Do you think people should be cared for" or something similar, most people say yes. That doesn't meant they support a national health care system that Obamacare sets up slowly over time.

quote:
It's been proven time and time again that spending by the Federal government does more to help stimulate the economy than tax cuts or any other form of "economic stimulus." Some of what you call "pork" does actually help the economy. It all depends on people's perspective as to what constitutes "pork." A guy in CA is going to call building a turnpike in eastern PA "pork barrel" spending. However, people who see a benefit in eastern PA are not going to see it that way. It depends largely on perspective. Now I will grant you that there are some "pork" projects that are ridiculous, but those are touted far more than the much more prevalent reasonable "pork" projects.


Of course blindly giving money out causes economic activity. The issue is whether the federal government has the authority to. Residents of one state shouldn't subsidize projects for another. And the main problem with said federal spending as far as "reviving" the economy is that the effect is temporary. It doesn't create permanent jobs. Once the project is over, no more jobs. Unless you continually pump money into pork projects. If PA or any other state needs a highway, they should build it themselves with the residents of the state paying for it.

quote:
Actually, yeah Bush did say that all troops would be gone from Iraq by December, 31 2011. That was included in the Status of Forces Agreement from 2008. Specifically it states in Article 24, "All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011." Furthermore, we are there at the will of the Iraqi government. We did not have UN permission to invade Iraq and we were acting in violation of international law. So blaming Obama for not upholding a treaty is just wrong and saying he fails in foreign policy by failing to start another war in Iraq with a legitimate government is just biased with no basis in fact.


Fine. I'll give you this one. As far as the UN, couldn't care less what they think or say. They don't give a crap about America and undermine us at every turn. And how is deposing a brutal dictator who has harbored international terrorists and violated NUMBEROUS sanctions. Not to mention refused to let weapons inspectors inspect their facilities randomly as was required. We were doing what the UN didn't have the balls to do. Partially because countries like France didn't want to lose out on their sweet (illegal) oil for food program.

quote:
This is also wrong. The government has not nationalized student loans. You are still able to and mostly required to get a private lender for your student loan debt. Banks/lenders selling some of the debt to the US for a profit does not make it a nationalization. I don't know why every time there are regulations put in place, people cry foul and say the government is taking over. It didn't happen with healthcare and it didn't happen with student loans.


Lenders aren't able to give loans without government approval of the programs. How is that not government control? And the US government has no business buying that debt either. Again, show me where in the constitution this is allowed? Its not.

And it has pretty much happened with health care. The government now is who tells insurance companies what policies they can and can't sell, what those policies have to cover, who they can and can't deny coverage, etc. Again, how is this not control? The full effects of the law just haven't kicked in yet. Hopefully they never will.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By JediJeb on 10/26/2011 5:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its a disease that is self-curable and caused by LIFESTYLE


To some extent maybe, but not an entirely true statement. My great uncle had it and he walk at least 3 miles a day up until he died at 80+ and he was skinny as a rail. My grandfather walked about as much but was still overweight and never had it and he lived to be 80. Type II diabetes has many causes, though lifestyle is a big one, it is not the only one.

I agree that there are those who bring it on themselves by their own inaction, but you can't lump everyone with the condition all together. I also feel it is everyone's own responsibility to take care of themselves, and to pay their own doctor bills. If you don't want to be saddled with huge doctor bills for something you could have prevented, then work to prevent it. Problem is if I am required to pay everyone else's bills then I won't have any money left over to be responsible for my own, that is why the government should get out of the business of trying to make everyone financially equal. It punishes those of us who are self reliant and rewards those who are not.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Mathos on 10/26/2011 8:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
Not really, I hold myself personally accountable for my own obesity. No one shoved the food down my throat, or whatever else. And yeah, Ron Paul is one of the GOP candidates I've been interesting in voting for. In fact he'd be the one I'd vote for, if he got his party nomination. Now if the GOP gets stuck with Perry, Cain, or Romney, I'd probably pick Obama as being the lesser of the evils as far as screwed up the country more goes.

I'm thankfully more of a centrist myself, not really a Dem or republican. As I'm pro choice, Pro guns, pro legalization of MJ, Pro union(but believe they need to take a different form, and lose compensation negotiating powers). I'm pro working for a living, instead of living off wellfare, but, I can see certain instances where not having a parent in the home is more damaging, in single parent situations. I'm pro healthcare reform or general regulation, but I also believe that corporate taxation and giving reduced taxation to companies for supplying company paid healthcare programs would help things greatly, as well as encouraging job growth just to have more tax write offs.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By x10Unit1 on 10/27/2011 11:17:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ron Paul's problem is his horrible foreign policy. Where he believes that America is responsible for 9/11 happening, that we should have no military forces overseas anywhere, and essentially be isolationists. A policy that showed its futility after the first World War.


Have you heard or read his reasoning on why he believes this?

Besides, why do you need bases everywhere? We can have a few strategic bases around the world and UAV bomb the places we need to. Seems to have worked so far.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By OneArmedScissorB on 10/26/2011 2:30:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Conservative social views????

Are you kidding me. He supports legalize drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage.


Eh...someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a half truth. What he supports is the state rights to handle such issues, as defined by the Constitution, and keeping them out of the federal government.

It would be almost like going back 100+ years, making him a reactionary, and therefore an extreme conservative.

He is completely against abortion, though, which is considered conservative. That seems conservative to me for the same reason as described above.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Raiders12 on 10/26/2011 2:57:52 PM , Rating: 3
Many view him as radical, conservative, etc...

But he believes in MORALITY. We are a country of lacking morals. Frevelous lawsuits, gambling, drinking, religious fanatics, and taking advantage of the downtrodden to prop up our lifestyle.

Santorum- Religious nut
Bachmann - Religious nut
Perry - Crooked religious nut
Romney - Big business, big banks, big handouts


RE: Tech? Politics...
By FITCamaro on 10/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Tech? Politics...
By Tequilasunriser on 10/26/2011 6:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
A mammalian fetus isn't a person until it is born, just like an egg isn't a person and sperm aren't people.

My personal view is that a 14 year old teen that made a mistake shouldn't have to screw her future (and the babies) because she was lost in the heat of the moment, was raped, forgot to buy a condom, or doesn't have birth control. The mother would probably drop out, and the kid, with a low socioeconomic status, would probably continue down the same path. A continuum of young, uneducated people is not what this country needs.

Adoption is a joke. It's too long, difficult, and expensive in many cases. If they could streamline the process a bit I could see it being a better option. Plus, there'd be way too many kids waiting for parents and kids living at orphanages if abortion wasn't allowed. It's not like only 5 abortions per day happen. Who would adopt all these kids?


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Tech? Politics...
By ClownPuncher on 10/26/2011 7:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
So what? They look weird. They also can't seem to get a goddamn job, entitlement fetus'.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Tequilasunriser on 10/26/2011 8:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you should have no problem if I go around punching pregnant women in the stomach


I'd have a problem with ANYONE getting assaulted. What does punching a woman (an act committed against her will) have to do with an abortion (a willful act)?

quote:
What about the millions of partial birth abortions that have taken place and still go on to this day? Babies struck down literally MINUTES from being born or even in the process of birth! That's not a person to you? Please.


What about them? That's how nature weeds out the weak. Ever see a mother bird kick the runt out of the nest? It's survival of the fittest. If a fetus miscarriages then there was something genetically wrong with the mother or fetus and it wasn't supposed to survive or procreate. Again, that may sound cruel but that's nature and that's the way it's been for millions of years to ensure a strong species. That is until modern human came into the picture thinking/assuming there was something more.

That, however, has nothing to do with abortion. Just a rebuttal to the above quote.

The point is, if a woman doesn't want a fetus growing in her she should have the choice to do something about it. If you and your girlfriend/wife are against it, then fine, choose not to abort, but do not force others to give up their choice.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Tech? Politics...
By Tequilasunriser on 10/26/2011 9:48:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Okay well first off, that's not natural selection at all.


No shit, Sherlock. I said survival of the fittest.

quote:
Secondly, thanks for wasting my time. I didn't know I was talking to a total sociopath.


Sorry to see you give up so soon, and you're welcome. :)


RE: Tech? Politics...
By FITCamaro on 10/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Tech? Politics...
By Tequilasunriser on 10/26/2011 10:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
I will admit I thought you were talking about miscarriages and premature babies for some reason. That was my fault for misreading.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2011 9:04:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'd have a problem with ANYONE getting assaulted


Apparently not if you're fine with a doctor ripping a baby out bit by bit or burning them out with chemicals. Which the baby feels every second of. And before you make an argument of what about before they feel it, by the time a woman knows she's pregnant, the nervous system has already formed.

But remember lethal injection, which when done properly is painless, is cruel and unusual.

quote:
What about them? That's how nature weeds out the weak. Ever see a mother bird kick the runt out of the nest? It's survival of the fittest. If a fetus miscarriages then there was something genetically wrong with the mother or fetus and it wasn't supposed to survive or procreate.


What the hell are you talking about!?!? Do you even know what a partial birth abortion is? That's an abortion where they kill the baby AS ITS BEING BORN YOU SICK FUCK! They slit its throat or kill it in other ways with the attitude of "its not alive until it cries"!

People like you are so hypocritical its disgusting.

If a woman doesn't want a fetus growing inside her she should keep her fucking legs shut or make sure to use the proper means so she doesn't get pregnant.

And rapes are the vast minority of cases. In those cases only does the "if she doesn't want it.." argument holds any merit. But the fact is its still wrong. The baby didn't rape the mother. The guy who deserves to die (and which liberals protect) did. A woman should realize that and give the baby the life it deserves with another family who can accept it. Is it necessarily fair? No. But who should "suffer"? The baby losing its life? Or the mother only having to live with the pregnancy for 9 months. 9 months compared to a potential lifetime is a small price to pay to do what's right.

But a disgusting asshole like you who just said what you said about partial birth abortion wouldn't understand whats right and wrong.

And what's been done for thousands of years is those that don't want to work for a living starve and die. Not get put up on Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, government housing, food stamps, the list goes on. But instead your disgusting attitude is to say babies having their throats slit, ripped apart, or burned to death is "just life".

I'm going to be going to bed angry tonight. >.<


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Tequilasunriser on 10/26/2011 9:33:57 PM , Rating: 1
First, calm down.

Second, yes, I am fine with abortion. I think I made that point very clear in the previous post...

Third, there are no abortions that occur as the baby is being born and the doctor slits the throat. At least not at legitimate clinics.
(Seriously what depths of the internet abyss do you guys pull this shit from?)

Fourth, sometimes even with precautions taken, a pregnancy can happen. Should a woman be punished for taking all proper precautions? I think not.

Fifth, do you really think there would be enough homes for all the babies born if abortions were made illegal? If you do you're delusional.

Lastly, if you don't want to get an abortion then fine, don't get one.

What a woman does to the fetus in her body has no affect on your life, so stop getting so worked up about it.

The only thing I'd like you to respond to is the following question. Why do you oppose abortion being a choice? (please sum it up in just a few sentences or less.)


RE: Tech? Politics...
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2011 9:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Third, there are no abortions that occur as the baby is being born and the doctor slits the throat. At least not at legitimate clinics.


http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/

quote:
Fourth, sometimes even with precautions taken, a pregnancy can happen. Should a woman be punished for taking all proper precautions? I think not.


She should accept the responsibility of someone who made a choice to have sex. Everyone knows that protection and birth control isn't 100% effective. So if you choose to have sex, even with those things, you are accepting the responsibility of what might happen. But I don't expect liberals to understand that.

quote:
Fifth, do you really think there would be enough homes for all the babies born if abortions were made illegal? If you do you're delusional.


No I think people would think twice about having sex. Furthermore if people weren't given money to have kids, that would also make them think. People shouldn't be essentially rewarded for having kids that they can't support. Again, responsibility. Again, something liberals don't understand.

quote:
Lastly, if you don't want to get an abortion then fine, don't get one. What a woman does to the fetus in her body has no affect on your life, so stop getting so worked up about it.


No but it does affect A life. A life that can't defend itself against people like you who trivialize life into a selfish choice of "this will make my life more difficult so I'm going to get rid of it".

quote:
Why do you oppose abortion being a choice?


Because its no less murder than me shooting you in the face.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Tequilasunriser on 10/26/2011 10:13:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/


Well, hey, look at that. A propaganda website. Good job! Try again?

quote:
Because its no less murder than me shooting you in the face.


So... you want to save the life of a fetus but you'd "shoot me in the face"?

quote:
Again, something liberals don't understand.


Ending statements like that don't lend much to your argument and make you seem shallow. see my example below.

quote:
No I think people would think twice about having sex.


Sex is awesome, its fun, its a stress reliever, and it increases a loving bond between partners. I wouldn't expect someone who's not getting sex to understand it though.

^see what I did there? ;)


RE: Tech? Politics...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/26/2011 3:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Eh...someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a half truth. What he supports is the state rights to handle such issues, as defined by the Constitution, and keeping them out of the federal government.

It would be almost like going back 100+ years, making him a reactionary, and therefore an extreme conservative.

He is completely against abortion, though, which is considered conservative. That seems conservative to me for the same reason as described above.

Meh, I agree that there should be federally guaranteed rights, e.g. freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc.

I don't agree with outlawing abortion as that's a religious based value judgement. Church and state should be separated.

So I don't see eye-to-eye with Mr. Paul on those issues...

But on Mr. Paul's more liberal social stands (e.g. decriminalizing drug use, prostitution, and allowing gay marriage) I agree with him.

I also agree with his perspective that we need to avoid occupying foreign nations and reduce the cost in life of hegemony interference that only benefits big corporations.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2011 5:21:21 PM , Rating: 3
Didn't realize murder was a religious issue. I love it how when it comes to religion, liberals claim to be all about science. But you bring up abortion and science that proves the fetus to be a living, breathing, human being that can feel pain is thrown out the window.

I'm not against things like Plan B which prevent the fetus from implanting in the uterus. But once its there, you just became a parent. Didn't want to be one? Well you shouldn't have had sex without protection or at all if you really want to be safe.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By autoboy on 10/26/2011 6:29:52 PM , Rating: 3
Agree with you that abortion is not a religious issue. It's a life issue. Until I was a father I didn't really realize how alive my unborn children were. Even very early on you could see them moving around on the ultra sound. I'm not religious, but you don't have to be to think that life should be protected and once you commit to that view, rape or not it still seems like killing a living human to me. But then I'm pro science and I seem to have no problem with the midgets on the "Little Couple" choosing a viable embryo without a fatal combination of genes for surrogacy.

A bit closer to home, my nephew is deaf because of a recessive gene. My brother and his wife chose not to have another baby who could be deaf and also chose not to pick an embryo that was not deaf because they didn't want to kill the embryo if it was deaf.

I'm not sure how I come down on this issue of where life starts and I think a lot of people feel that way. I feel like a lot of people that just say they are pro-choice have never really thought it through all the way and just say it because it sounds good and is the cool thing do be. That's how I was until I actually had to think it through and I still don't really know how I feel about it.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 6:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Until I was a father I didn't really realize how alive my unborn children were.


Yes and you apparently should have no say at all in whether or not the mother decides she wants to keep "your" children.

Feminism is disgusting in so many ways, none as apparent as on this issue.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Aikouka on 10/26/2011 6:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
I think our country, and quite possibly the majority of the world, has an issue with people living a life of self-indulgence where they simply ignore any possible repercussions of their actions. You can draw parallels with this and teen pregnancies, debt pile-up, etc. I'm not trying to imply that "living in the now" is the only cause of our problems, but I don't believe it's something small enough to ignore.

I think it's important that we start trying to teach our younger generations through an example of consequence rather than simply stating that "[insert thing here] is bad". Show how much that XBOX 360 or new HDTV ends up costing you if you put it on a credit card with x% interest and only pay the minimum payment. Help show them about caloric intake and the different kinds of exercise through actual examples.

I've gone off a bit of a tangent, but I've had a bit of trouble in trying to figure out a logical way to "deal" with abortion. "When does the child's life become substantial enough to warrant being protected under law?"... that's a completely valid question to bring up, and it's also wise to consider that in a way, the mother is sort of like an executor on the unborn child's behalf. It's a bit different than other situations given that the mother is directly physically affected.

What I've tried doing is drawing a parallel between actions such as abortion and the concept of "pulling the plug" on a hospitalized person that appears to have no chance of survival. It seems to be almost the same set of actions where an executor decides to end the person's life because the person exhibits no sign of life.

Given that's a completely legal thing to do... wouldn't abortion be similar?


RE: Tech? Politics...
By OneArmedScissorB on 10/26/2011 8:02:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't agree with outlawing abortion as that's a religious based value judgement.


So you have a definition of when a life begins? I think you're going to need to be able to stand by that before you can write it off as just a religious issue. Good luck!

This seems like more of a science issue to me - which already provides a much less dubious solution:

Morning after pills and other emergency contraceptive measures have been around for 40 years now. It's not as if rape victims or people who "made a mistake" have no alternative.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Starcub on 10/26/2011 5:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What he supports is the state rights to handle such issues,


BINGO! In fact that's even his position on the abortion issue. His personal opposition to abortion stems from the fact he was an OB. Most doctors are against abortion for practical/medical reasons. Most people couldn't care less if someone wanted to kill their own kid, they just want them to do it on their own dime.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By ClownPuncher on 10/26/2011 3:28:52 PM , Rating: 3
That would just be called a classical liberal. He is considered crazy because his political views are more consistent across the board than other candidates right now. Apparently, media pundits need candidates that have contradicting social and fiscal views.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Piiman on 10/26/2011 5:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I find it odd how the media acts like he's not even in the race. Do they ever mention his name? I'm a dem but I would seriously consider RP. But even when he wins something the media will still say Mitt is the front runner when all polls so far have him close to last.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By adiposity on 10/26/2011 3:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He's a financial conservative, but a social "liberal".


Also known as a libertarian...

Anyway, he is a social liberal, except when it comes to abortion. This makes him a bit different from your average libertarian.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2011 5:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me but the founding fathers were not social liberals in today's sense. They would have never been ok with gay marriage or abortions. Drugs and prostitution though were things left to the states (which I would like to see today as well). Prostitution was HEAVILY frowned upon both legally and culturally. Alcohol was also banned in many places just like today. People used some drugs banned today largely because they didn't understand them. If left to the states, many of the drugs illegal today would still be illegal in the vast majority of states save for marijuana.

And Ron Paul largely doesn't support the things you say, he just doesn't think the federal government should be involved in them.

But the founding fathers were in no way social liberals when speaking in the context of today.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By autoboy on 10/26/2011 6:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
A weak federal government was a requirement to get the once autonomous states to agree to become one country. They would never have joined forces if they were under the rule of a strong fed. Since then, it's grown in scope and power. Paul's argument that if it isn't in the constitution then the fed shouldn't do it is a little weak for me based on what i know about how the government was formed, but I do tend to agree with him that the fed has gone way beyond what it should be doing in a free society so I can't disagree with his message.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By FITCamaro on 10/26/2011 8:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution has a way of expanding what the federal government is allowed to do if the people will it. It's called an amendment. But too many politicans know that the majority of people don't support things like national health care and such. So they just ignore the constitution and interpret text that is there out of context to justify their actions.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Chaser on 10/26/2011 5:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
With the federal government spending $410,000 a minute, and 40% of each of those dollars being borrowed from other countries the least of our worries is gay "marriage".

Our country faces a looming financial crisis unlike anything ever in it's history. Completely out of our control, once these foreign countries stop financing our government's addiction to spending and end our credit the country will have no choice to go into bankruptcy.

Democrat politicians in their desperation to not lose power can't run on their controversial record so they are resorting to inciting class warfare, fear and of course more promises of spending programs and policies that we cannot afford. The Occupiers want even bigger government, more spending programs, and think that punishing the "rich" is the magical wand of tranquility. What they don't understand is that at this point taxing the top 1% won't even make a dent in our national debt.

With the addiction to spending our present president and his administration have it's going to be even worse in desperation as his reelection chances are in serious jeopardy and continue to dwindle.

The last thing we need as a leader is a foreign isolationist like Doctor Dimento. He and his para-anarchist supporters will not be beneficial for a country that's in the dire straights we face today and so beholden to surviving off the credit of other countries.

Like him or not Mitt Romney has a proven record of turning around faltering corporations and businesses. He also has executive branch experience and foreign policy expertise. He is capable leader that will be straight forward to the American people on the tough decisions our country so desperately needs make to survive financially.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Chaser on 10/26/2011 5:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
A couple corrections:
$411,000,000 an hour.

Taxing the top 1% at 100%.
Sorry folks.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 6:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Democrat politicians in their desperation to not lose power can't run on their controversial record so they are resorting to inciting class warfare, fear and of course more promises of spending programs and policies that we cannot afford.


Exactly! They sure as hell can't stand up and say "Look at all the great things we've done, don't you want 4 more years?"

This election will be the ugliest you've ever seen. Obama simply can't go positive, because there is no positive. He'll have to go ultra negative, and his media patsies will be all too complicit in it, as usual.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ryrod on 10/26/2011 6:54:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Democrat politicians in their desperation to not lose power can't run on their controversial record so they are resorting to inciting class warfare, fear and of course more promises of spending programs and policies that we cannot afford.


The Democrats are not resorting to class warfare. This is a ridiculous charge that sounds great as a talking point, but is not a reality. Look at what the Republicans did saying that people needed to get their weapons and retake the government from 2008 to 2010. Some of the same people crying foul over "class warfare" are the same ones that told people to lead the charge to "take their country back" from a democratically elected Congress. If that isn't class warfare, then what the Democrats are doing by calling for a reversion to Clinton-era tax rates is definitely not class warfare. As for the "Democrats spreading fear" comment, how are they doing this?

quote:
The Occupiers want even bigger government, more spending programs, and think that punishing the "rich" is the magical wand of tranquility. What they don't understand is that at this point taxing the top 1% won't even make a dent in our national debt.


The Occupy Wall Street aren't talking about punishing the rich. Reverting the tax rate to the Clinton-era would raise an additional $75 billion, with a 'B', per year. Over the long-term, that would help greatly to reduce the amount of debt we have, especially if we got out of this recession, two wars, and cut our stimulus spending. Saying it won't put a dent in our national debt is foolish and nothing more than a Republican talking point to convince people not to revert the tax rate back to the 90s.

Furthermore, much of the wealth accrued by that 1% is taxed at an even lower rate than what the middle class pays. I'm with OWS on this point. I don't think the 1% should be taxed at 15% on most of their 'real' income when I am, and millions of others, are taxed at 25%. I don't think it is right and would love to have someone justify that for me, especially when I work for all of my income, but many of those 1% individuals only work for a small portion of their income.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 7:00:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Democrats are not resorting to class warfare.


Ok you either have to be some little kid or an idiot to say that at this point.

quote:
Reverting the tax rate to the Clinton-era would raise an additional $75 billion


With the economy collapsing, the idea that increasing taxes would "raise" additional funds is ludicrous! You're talking about bailing out the sinking Titanic with a Dixie cup! Idiot!

Don't even reply. Seriously you post some ignorant stuff. Get a clue please.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By ClownPuncher on 10/26/2011 7:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
Herman Cain wants to raise taxes on people too. Just not the rich.

Unfortunately I don't see a good candidate this year. Unless someone breaks out and starts offering real solutions, Ron Paul gets my vote.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 7:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well by "everyone" do you mean the sales tax? Cause his little 9-9-9 thing doesn't seem like a tax bracket increase to me.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 7:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Also let me just point out that raising taxes, in of itself, isn't necessarily "class warfare".


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ryrod on 10/26/2011 7:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Then why are you saying that I am an idiot? That is my exact point that I am raising. It is stupid to say that reverting back to the Clinton-era tax rates is causing class warfare. It's a stupid accusation, especially when it is used by Republicans who say that we can't tax "job creators".

Your only issue stems from the fact that I am saying that Democrats are not inciting class warfare. Your bias towards Democrats and anyone else who doesn't agree with you is blinding.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ryrod on 10/26/2011 8:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well yes, because that's a lie. They are, and it's not subtle at all. It's plain as day.


So you must have been outraged when the Republicans were inciting violence against a democratically elected Congress? I'm talking about telling people to grab their guns and fix their bayonets to take 'their' nation back from the liberals and the rest of the majority of people who voted in the 2008 Congress. That must have made your blood just absolutely boil at how crass Republicans, especially elected officials were acting.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 9:02:59 PM , Rating: 1
Please provide a link of elected Republican officials literally advocating gun violence and inciting a revolution. I would love to see this. I know you're full of shit.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ryrod on 10/26/2011 9:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP2p91dvm6M

You can skip ahead to 5:01 if you want to avoid listening to how he thinks our government is tyrannical and everyone needs to fight back. You can also skip the part where he talks about how the US was founded by insurgents fighting against the tyrannical British. The part that I do love is the part where he talks about everyone getting their bayonet and charging the "enemy" which he refers to earlier in the speech as anyone receiving welfare or the tyrannical government in general.

Now, I showed you where he advocates violence and a revolution. Now please send me a video where Obama says that the poor need to rise up against himself and other millionaires. Or were you just saying that raising taxes on the rich at any time constitutes class warfare?

Oh and by the way, Republicans have been inciting class warfare, according to your supposed definition, long before this 'class warfare' garbage even started. I think it started around the time that Republicans were saying that 50% of people don't pay any taxes at all (which was incorrect when and as stated). So saying that you have 'takers and makers' and saying how 'takers' are sucking the lifeblood out of America counts as class warfare, right? Now I'm saying that Obama isn't inciting class warfare by simply wanting to raise taxes on a specific group, but if you are going to say he is, don't have a double standard. Moving the goal posts based on whether the speaker is Republican or Democrat doesn't make you smart; it makes you biased.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ryrod on 10/26/2011 11:19:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're so fucking stupid you cannot even tell he's speaking FIGURATIVELY?
Oh my god..wait..lmao you think class warfare meant ACTUAL fighting??


Incite: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on

Just because some people don't decide to take up his call to arms doesn't mean that he is not inciting. Since you are so liberal about your definitions, his actions are incitement.

Oh and I never said class warfare entails actual fighting, but what you are suggesting is that Republicans are innocent of it, but Democrats are guilty. Don't be so foolish and partisan to believe that your party is the virgin Mary while any of your opponents are the devil incarnate. You are so blind and stupid to the facts simply because they do not fit your narrative. I've been polite in my posts all the while you swear at me and make ad hominem attacks to oppose any valid argument that I make. You sir, are a hypocrite, plain and simple. Maybe next time you say something, you should stop to think how dumb your position is when it is based solely upon your fictional universe made up of Fox News and Republican talking points. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 8:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Let me clue you in, and this is the simplest definition of the term. When Obama pits one group of Americans against another, based purely on a class basis (rich vs middle/poor) THAT'S class warfare.

Does he do this? Yes. Nauseatingly so!


RE: Tech? Politics...
By x10Unit1 on 10/27/2011 11:11:23 AM , Rating: 2
Let me clue YOU in.

You do more harm in promoting your ideas than good.

You make other people that share in some of your beliefs look bad.

You are one of the reasons that "class warfare" or any other word or phrase you want to give the division of this country into groups of political radicals is happening.

All I ever read from your comments is hatred and insults to anyone that doesn't agree with you or your beliefs. You need to take a few steps back and take a deep breath and look at the bigger picture because I guarantee your beloved republicans and "their" beloved democrats are BOTH the problem and neither are the solution.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By ClownPuncher on 10/26/2011 7:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
Herman Cain wants to raise taxes on people too. Just not the rich.

Unfortunately I don't see a good candidate this year. Unless someone breaks out and starts offering real solutions, Ron Paul gets my vote.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ryrod on 10/26/2011 7:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With the economy collapsing, the idea that increasing taxes would "raise" additional funds is ludicrous! You're talking about bailing out the sinking Titanic with a Dixie cup! Idiot!
Don't even reply. Seriously you post some ignorant stuff. Get a clue please.


You're telling me to get a clue. You are suggesting that we shouldn't raise revenue to help shore up out deficit because "the economy is collapsing"? The economy is not collapsing. Where are you getting this stuff from?

And I'm sorry, but if you feel like bailing out the sinking Titanic with a Dixie cup, then what is your solution? Jumping into the icy cold waters of the Atlantic to freeze to death from hypothermia. At least some money would be raised so that we can decrease the deficit and eventually use that money to help pay down our debt in the long-run. It's not as though raising the tax bracket is going to cause millionaires to go hungry, especially when you consider that we did it for almost a decade and had one of the most prosperous decades during that time.

And as for my posts being ignorant, at least they are supported by the facts rather than blind ideology. Why don't you turn off Fox News and look to something else that is not so ridiculously partisan.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By adiposity on 10/27/2011 12:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I'm sorry, but if you feel like bailing out the sinking Titanic with a Dixie cup, then what is your solution? Jumping into the icy cold waters of the Atlantic to freeze to death from hypothermia.


Look, if we give all the rich people the lifeboats, then sure, the Titanic will sink, but at least all those rich people won't suffer. If we can't save the economy, at least we can make the lives of the rich just a little bit better, right? Have a heart!


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Chaser on 10/26/2011 8:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
What's ridiculous is your blissful ignorance.

President Obama is stoking class warfare with his rhetoric.

He's presently barnstorming swing states, and pushing a divisive message that pits one group of Americans against another on the basis of class and appealing to class-based fear, envy, and resentment. What happened to the “hope and optimism” of his 2008 presidential bid?

And now that his own party rejected another one of his spending bills he's trying to bypass congressional approval to enact a mortgage refinancing program, Sound familiar? And consolidating student loan payments? Students loans? I wonder who these initiatives are intended to appeal to? Wall Street?

If we take your figures and make it "fair" it still will do virtually nothing to our deficit other than make a small segment of younger voters fell better vote for him.

This president is worried about one job: his. And the fear rhetoric will continue to rise as he'll do anything to stay in office. He is one of the most incompetent presidents and administrations -as most his wonderful financial advisers have resigned- in history.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Chaser on 10/26/2011 8:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
If raising taxes was the route to prosperity there'd be no recessions.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ryrod on 10/26/2011 9:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If raising taxes was the route to prosperity there'd be no recessions.


Raising and lowering taxes has very little to do with economic recessions. We are no longer dealing with a producer based economy and haven't since the mid-90s. Our economy has now turned into a consumer-based economy. Providing tax breaks to wealthy individuals so they can turn around and buy up government bonds or trade currencies isn't nearly as effective as spending money to improve infrastructure which creates jobs thereby increasing tax revenues and decreasing reliance on government benefits.

Oh and we have since the 1950s been using economic policy to limit the effect of recessions on the US economy and to rein in economic booms. This is done through spending and taxing.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Chaser on 10/27/2011 12:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Raising and lowering taxes has very little to do with economic recessions.
How about you read the entire thread before you dive into your nothingness point.

My point was about the Democrat party's incessant rants and growing government by taking money out of the private sector. We have a much larger problem here than what the remaining "rich" can fix with the debt crisis this country faces. The rhetoric might make OWS feel better or maybe even more people but many of them will never be satisfied until everyone is equally miserable. All except their hypocritical cohorts: Democratic millionaires and billionaires of course and their main stream new media machine.

quote:
Oh and we have since the 1950s been using economic policy


Thanks for the useless flashback that no one cares about and had nothing to do with the thread you blindly jumped into with your meaningless babble.

So since this has nothing to do with Democrats insatiable desire to raise taxes as the magical cure for their ever growing, unaffordable cradle to grave nanny state spending programs we'll move on now.

Cheers


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ryrod on 10/27/2011 1:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about you read the entire thread before you dive into your nothingness point.


Huh? For some reason, I thought you were responding to my post which addressed issues I found in your post. I figured I was ok responding to your comment that "If raising taxes was the route to prosperity there'd be no recessions." I didn't know that every post had to refer back to your original original thread post which was made 3 hrs prior and that we had narrowed in scope.

quote:
My point was about the Democrat party's incessant rants and growing government by taking money out of the private sector.


And my point was that your statement was incorrect regarding the correlation between taxes and recessions. Even if it was intended to be facetious.

quote:
Thanks for the useless flashback that no one cares about and had nothing to do with the thread you blindly jumped into with your meaningless babble.


Considering that you were responding to my thread, I think I was entitled to respond to your barb regarding my position that we should raise taxes on the top tax bracket back to Clinton-era levels. Oh, and I didn't blindly jump into the post. I found two things that I thought were incorrect about your post and addressed those.

quote:
So since this has nothing to do with Democrats insatiable desire to raise taxes as the magical cure for their ever growing, unaffordable cradle to grave nanny state spending programs we'll move on now.


I addressed a few issues in your earlier post and asked what Obama was saying that was fear mongering. With your only answer being that he was spreading class-based fear and fear mongering rhetoric, this seems rather like a pot-calling-the-kettle-black situation, don't you think?

Now, if you would like me to respond to your earlier post, I can do that. I can talk about how ending two wars, cutting stimulus spending, and getting out of this recession would greatly reduce out deficit spending per year and might eventually lead to a surplus down the road. I could also talk about how both parties' unchecked deficit spending has gotten us into this mess and how we need to look to pay down the debt when the economy improves, but we shouldn't use austerity measures to send us into a depression. I could also talk about how Obama's lead economic adviser Goolsbee left so he wouldn't lose his job in Chicago and did not actually quit because he was fleeing a sinking ship. However, if you expected me to validate the rest of your post, I am sorry, but I never had any intention to do so. I figured it was only important to address portions of your post that I found incorrect or that I disagreed with.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 4:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good comment. That was my point, in so many words.


Right. So if we went back to 2008 in the archives would we find a similar article from you questioning Obama's conflicts in regards to his policies vs campaign contributions?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why does this whole thing read like a hatchet job on the Republican candidate.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By MGSsancho on 10/26/2011 5:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
Mick, let me reiterate your biggest point to not you but to our friends and family, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!! We can not just read headlines or trust a single news source of any kind.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Tequilasunriser on 10/26/2011 1:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

I don't think the occupation of wall Street is completely useless, but it will be for naught if we don't occupy our government as well. In order for the occupy movement to become more effective we need to occupy both.

Attack from both sides and hopefully oust our bought politicians.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By MrBlastman on 10/26/2011 1:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We need to occupy the White House lawn and Congress footsteps.


How much more will it take for Americans to gather the courage to confront the possible finality that might ensue from such a movement? A finality that could lead to a much... brighter future.

I lament, as most Americans that I witness seem to have lost their will to fight and stand up for what they believe in--or... believed in them--Their COUNTRY!


RE: Tech? Politics...
By sprockkets on 10/26/2011 3:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
Clinton? But we had a surplus with him, not a deficit! And after that no one seemed to whine about 3% more on taxes.

OK, OK, it's more complex than that but hey!


RE: Tech? Politics...
By TSS on 10/26/2011 4:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to be a number nazi, but

quote:
-+$300 BILLION annually on debt service


make that $454 billion annually. At *historical* low rates. By comparison you hit $451 billion annual interest 3 years ago, at an average of 5% rates, with ~$4 trillion less debt. If the financial crisis had not happened, that number would be at least $700 billion a year, at higher rates because inflation was still rising (up to 5,8% annually!)so rates still needed to be higher.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_e...

Also you're just shy of $15 trillion national debt now.

Sorry to nitpick but the first step of recovery is awareness of the problem and americans are absolutely terrible at that.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ringold on 10/26/2011 4:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
The CPI for September was 3.6% annualized, if I remember. Starting to creep up. Real rates are negative. I think we see how the government will repay our huge debt: inflate it away.

Only downside is, could inflate away all the value of the money people have saved as well.

For that to work, though, I think we'd need a primary budget surplus, so that we can retire debt, otherwise eventually foreigners will stop paying us money for the honor of losing money.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By DanD85 on 10/27/2011 5:14:57 AM , Rating: 1
Do I see a trend here?
So basically every shit that did, is and will happen is the government fault. That's it, no one else is to blame, isn't it?

OK, but who is responsible for feeding those damn politicians with those ideas? Is there a "how to ruin America for dummies" book ??? I'm sure they cannot come up with those bastard ideas all by themselves right ?

So I guess financial market deregulation, banks deregulation, the merging of commercial and investment bank (aka the abolition of Glass-Steagall Act), the thinking that industrial manufacture doesn't matter anymore (because we think we're living in a post-industrial age) have nothing to do with this god damn mess whatsoever right ?

Please people, give credit where credit is due! What you see is just symptoms, the truth is buried much deeper than what you see.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Ryrod on 10/27/2011 6:20:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Do I see a trend here?
So basically every shit that did, is and will happen is the government fault. That's it, no one else is to blame, isn't it?


Well, like Reagan said in his first inaugural address "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." It's a self-fulfilling prophecy like you alluded to. People and institutions that are greedy get the ear of politicians through money and the politicians implement policies that they know will (in)directly harm the citizens of the this country. Then they complain about how the government can't be trusted to do anything right. It's rather tragic when you think about it.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By Amiga500 on 10/27/2011 7:46:01 AM , Rating: 2
It is not solely the fault of the administrations.

It is also the fault of the American people for rolling over and accepting it.

"a little rebellion now and then is a good thing"
- Thomas Jefferson

No candidate or political party should get contributions from companies or individuals. They should get limited funding from the central government and fixed access to timeslots on TV.

No campaign contributions/bribes and payouts = no need to defend or to advance the agendas of people/groups who the public did not vote for.


RE: Tech? Politics...
By woody1 on 10/30/2011 5:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
How does Bush get off the hook? He increased the debt a lot.


Almost
By MeesterNid on 10/26/2011 12:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, it ignores the fact that developing electric vehicles is somewhat of a national security issue for the U.S. as it allows America to remove itself from foreign oil, which tends to come from volatile, hostile regions like the Middle East and Venezuela.


Really, Jason? That's as far as your imagination could take you? So THE ONLY WAY for us to remove our dependence of foreign oil is to develop electric vehicles that go 30 miles on a charge?

Hmmmm...let's see, we have a giant CRAP LOAD of oil and gas reserves in this country that our freaktarded environmental regulations don't allow us to tap. How's abouts we get our own oil and thus become independent, eh?

Glad I could contribute to our nations's security by removing that impediment.




RE: Almost
By Shig on 10/26/2011 12:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
Rofl, nice work troll. Whether or not you have oil isn't the issue, if it costs 100$+ to extract and refine because it's 3 miles under the ocean doesn't exactly make it ideal or cost effective for the average american.


RE: Almost
By Shig on 10/26/2011 12:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
*per barrel


RE: Almost
By MrBlastman on 10/26/2011 1:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
Bakken shale. Read about it. It huge and a LOT of people are becoming wealthy off of it.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

The Bakken reserve is only the beginning. There is much more to be found in our nation...

Tesla and Fisker are simple moneypots. They are worthless and a waste of our time. If they can't make a profit, they should quit trying to make these cars.


RE: Almost
By Gurthang on 10/26/2011 3:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
I would like to point out that in 2009 the US imported about 10.5 million barrels of oil per day.

From 2000 to 2007 the Bakken shale sites have produced 105 million barrels total. Even if the people exploiting this could scale up quickly and US consumption stayed flat this deposit (using the highest estimate of 4.3 bil) would cover about 410 days of imported oil. A help for sure, but I have to ask a question why is production so low right now, if it is such a great site oil companies will be all over that like white on rice.


RE: Almost
By MeesterNid on 10/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Almost
By Gurthang on 10/26/2011 3:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not trying to get in the fight here but the problem with natural gas is transportation. There are currently a number of efforts to catalyze it into a more usefull liquid fuels that could be used where refined oil is now but until those technologies prove themselves at real production rates it is no better than talking up EVs as the future.

And that is not even talking about the issues with "fraking" and groundwater that seem to be dogging attempts to exploit our natural gas resources.


RE: Almost
By Dorkyman on 10/26/2011 2:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
Get the facts, man. There is a crapload of oil and natural gas available AT COMPETITIVE PRICES. We're not allowed to get at it.

Thankfully, that will all change next year.


RE: Almost
By kyleb2112 on 10/27/2011 4:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
The oil in ANWR isn't 3 miles under the ocean. It's sitting there for us to use, but leftists douche bags won't allow it.


RE: Almost
By Ryrod on 10/27/2011 6:06:43 AM , Rating: 2
ANWR has only around 6 to 16 billion barrels of oil. Based upon our consumption at around 18.7 million barrels per day, or 6.8 billion a year, we would use up all of it in about 1 year to 2 1/3 years. Given the costs associated with setting up an oil derrick and operating it in northern Alaska, not to mention oil transportation costs, the benefit of a year or two worth of oil isn't that substantial at this point in time.

Even given our total (extractable) estimated reserves of 191 or so billion, our energy independence would only last for around 30 years or so. This is all assuming that our consumption stays the same.

Now I'm not disagreeing with you that we should utilize the oil in ANWR, but it seems more reasonable to leave it for the time being. Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iraq, and Kuwait would all be better sources for our oil based on the fact that they are already producing and each have around 100+ years worth of reserves.

A better solution is to focus on efficiency in petroleum usage and to explore alternatives forms of energy to replace petroleum. We can leave ANWR until oil becomes much more expensive (thinking $200/bbl) or until national security requires it.


RE: Almost
By Dorkyman on 10/27/2011 12:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'd suggest a far better idea is to develop the hell out of our own reserves in case a war stops the oil tankers. In my view the very first order of business for a country is to ensure that it survives and thrives even in time of war.

As oil gradually increases in cost, alternative mechanisms will automatically begin to take over. But not now, and not in the next decade.

Right now we are sitting ducks because Messiah is philosophically opposed to developing our own natural resources.


RE: Almost
By Ryrod on 10/27/2011 3:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd suggest a far better idea is to develop the hell out of our own reserves in case a war stops the oil tankers. In my view the very first order of business for a country is to ensure that it survives and thrives even in time of war.


Oh, I agree with you that we do need to develop our reserves, but I don't think that spending the money to develop ANWR is beneficial to us at this time. There are other sources of oil in the US that haven't been tapped that aren't located in the most northern part of Alaska. We should tap those, more easily accessible sources as opposed to tapping ANWR. Now, if war broke out for us tomorrow with another strong nation, then that would change the cost-benefit analysis and drilling in ANWR would likely be worth it.

quote:
Right now we are sitting ducks because Messiah is philosophically opposed to developing our own natural resources.


When it comes down to it, philosophy doesn't as much as the economics of it. Likely destruction of natural habitat, possible health risks associated with a drilling mishap, and the sheer costs of operating the oil derrick outweighs the marginal benefit of drilling in ANWR at this time. However, if we can't get oil for less than $200-250/bbl or a war breaks out, then I'm sure Obama would say "screw the environment" just like any other President would.


RE: Almost
By Reclaimer77 on 10/27/2011 3:39:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now, if war broke out for us tomorrow with another strong nation, then that would change the cost-benefit analysis and drilling in ANWR would likely be worth it.


By then it would be way too late. It would take 10+ years to get any oil drilling operation in ANWR up and running at capacity.

quote:
Likely destruction of natural habitat, possible health risks associated with a drilling mishap


Likely destruction of natural habitat, possible health risks associated with a drilling mishap

ANWR is a barren wasteland, there IS no habitat. There are NO potential environmental concerns aside from the made up ones in Liberals heads. We're talking about drilling for oil here, not strip mining or deforestation!


RE: Almost
By Ryrod on 10/27/2011 4:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ANWR is a barren wasteland, there IS no habitat. There are NO potential environmental concerns aside from the made up ones in Liberals heads. We're talking about drilling for oil here, not strip mining or deforestation!


Yeah, who cares about all those caribou, whales, or even the people living in Katowik. There are environmental concerns, and they are real because an oil spill could contaminate the area, which you call "barren wasteland". Saying that there are no environmental concerns ignores all of the past oil spills (BP in the Gulf, Exxon Valdez in the Northwest) that have occurred and is just foolish.

quote:
By then it would be way too late. It would take 10+ years to get any oil drilling operation in ANWR up and running at capacity.


Where are you getting the 10+ years figure from? A fleet of trucks could get all of the materials to build a well in a matter of months and building the well would take only a year at most since it is on land. So it could be producing substantial quantities in a matter of 2-3 years. The biggest roadblock to drilling right now is the cost of continually shipping mud up there for drilling. That's what would be expensive and what makes drilling in ANWR not as attractive as other sources of oil.

If we went to war, and we cut off access to the SPR, except for military use, it could last the US 4-5 years alone. This doesn't include all the oil that could be produced domestically or imported from Canada which would supplement the SPR and provide oil for consumers, at a less than current consumption level. So saying that drilling once war started would be too late, isn't necessarily true.


RE: Almost
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/26/2011 1:03:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Really, Jason? That's as far as your imagination could take you? So THE ONLY WAY for us to remove our dependence of foreign oil is to develop electric vehicles that go 30 miles on a charge?

I'm not saying the money was well spent in this case. Merely saying that dependence on foreign oil is a real security issue -- one that has been acknowledged to some extent by both parties.

quote:
Hmmmm...let's see, we have a giant CRAP LOAD of oil and gas reserves in this country that our freaktarded environmental regulations don't allow us to tap. How's abouts we get our own oil and thus become independent, eh?

Sure, I support opening up these reserves.

quote:
Glad I could contribute to our nations's security by removing that impediment.

Fair enough.

To make my personal feelings clear, I actually support for Romney's call for a probe/scrutiny of these loans. Aside from the favoritism issues, the idea of the government acting as a venture capitalist here and taking on high risk debt is a questionable proposition. Loans to veteran automakers to make EVs would at least have been lower risk.

Despite my feelings in that direct, I can't tolerate a hypocrite, and Romney is being heavily funded by the bailout banks and has kept his mouth shut pretty much on the much bigger bailouts they were given. That's unconscionably hypocritical in my eyes.

Sadly, it's pretty much representative of American federal politics in general these days -- from BOTH parties. All these politicians feign outrage at cronyism -- well the cronyism that isn't supporting them, at least.


RE: Almost
By MrBlastman on 10/26/2011 1:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Despite my feelings in that direct, I can't tolerate a hypocrite, and Romney is being heavily funded by the bailout banks and has kept his mouth shut pretty much on the much bigger bailouts they were given. That's unconscionably hypocritical in my eyes.


Since you recognize this, Jason, surely you also see the broader picture of the Bank connection--where do the majority of politicians go after they leave office? Wall Street.

They are _all_ hypocrites.


RE: Almost
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/26/2011 1:41:24 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Since you recognize this, Jason, surely you also see the broader picture of the Bank connection--where do the majority of politicians go after they leave office? Wall Street.

They are _all_ hypocrites.

Yep no surprises there.

I think the GE story I covered truly opened my eyes to that. Bush gave GE $1B in tax breaks. Obama gets in office -- what does he do? He keeps all those tax breaks and appoints GE's CEO head of his taxes and jobs board. Talk about, "meet the new boss same, as the old boss".

Since then I've been digging deeper into the funding and am truly sadden by what I've seen. America is in bad trouble and it's only getting worse with each election. No matter which of our two wonderful choices win, we lose. (Unless you happen to be a wealthy investor.)


RE: Almost
By Spuke on 10/26/2011 2:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(Unless you happen to be a wealthy investor.)
I'm not so sure they're really benefiting either. Maybe short term.


RE: Almost
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 4:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Despite my feelings in that direct, I can't tolerate a hypocrite, and Romney is being heavily funded by the bailout banks and has kept his mouth shut pretty much on the much bigger bailouts they were given. That's unconscionably hypocritical in my eyes.


The TARP wasn't a bailout though, it was a loan. And unlike the "loans" the Obama administration claims they give out, the TARP actually payed off. The TARP was payed off with huge interest, the Government actually MADE money from it.

So hypocritical? I think that's a stretch here. But, of course, I know your need to slam the Republicans runs deep and always has.

Obama has amassed an absolute reelection WAR CHEST. A lot of it OUR money that was cleverly funneled back to him, Solyndra *cough*. Anyone with a hope in hell of running against him is going to need big money. Are you seriously faulting Romney here? Come on, let's be real here Jason. Show me the last President who won an election without campaign contributions.

I'm not a huge Romney fan, but at this point, what's it matter? ANYONE will be better than Obama. This is the most sure-fire election in history. Voting for ANYONE other than Obama is a win for America.


RE: Almost
By Ringold on 10/26/2011 5:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
The bank "bail outs" invoked by protestors get on my nerves too, 'cause they're asking for bailouts as well, as if its fair. Like the student protestors asking for student loan forgiveness. Wall Street paid back its "bail out" within a couple years in most cases, with interest.

Wiping out student loans, or just handing money out, is a one-way transfer. Totally different. I wonder if they understand, or if they do understand, do they even care?


RE: Almost
By harlock328 on 10/26/2011 10:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
TARP did NOT make money for the Gov. Based on CBO; the it will cost tax payers 19Billion.
Where was the conservatives during the Bush Jr. Pres. spending trillions on 2 conflicts? Iraq that we shouldn't have gone in and in Afgan that went from supporting the rebels to over throw the Taliban to nation building (which we shouldn't be doing). We should be out of both countries. To pretend that somehow this nation's financial mess is Obama or Dem's fault is very naive. Both parties ruined this nation; both parties continue to spend without any control; both parties could care less about the American people or this nation; only their power.
I voted for Bush Jr. first time and Obama. I will not vote for Obama again because he's all talk and is not any different than previous President. Of all the Republicans, I would vote for Ron but he's not Ultra religious; kisses Big business and stupid enough for the Teabagger's that are controlling the Republican party to be nominated.


RE: Almost
By harlock328 on 10/26/2011 10:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
I was incorrect..the bank portion of TARP made money even after 14Billion loss for AIG..sorry


RE: Almost
By Starcub on 10/26/2011 5:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To make my personal feelings clear, I actually support for Romney's call for a probe/scrutiny of these loans. Aside from the favoritism issues, the idea of the government acting as a venture capitalist here and taking on high risk debt is a questionable proposition.

The govt. has been doing this for almost a century. They've been pumping public money into failed oil and gas drilling ventures since 1916. Now that clean energy is becoming marketable, they're shifting the focus.

However, the govt. hasn't done nearly enough to help clean energy development. Even today, traditional dirty energy gets several times as much federal subsidy. Moreover, were the govt. to subsidize clean energy and tech at levels proportional to what China has, Solyndra just wouldn't have happened.

Why do suppose that only now this has become a problem? I'll bet you that nothing comes of this. They'll whine and moan in front of the camera's to make it into a political issue, which will probably eventually backfire on them come election time.

Don't expect change. I doubt republicrats will do anything to jeopardize the system that keeps _all_ of them rich.


RE: Almost
By michael67 on 10/26/2011 8:04:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not saying the money was well spent in this case. Merely saying that dependence on foreign oil is a real security issue -- one that has been acknowledged to some extent by both parties.

You really counter dict your self here
quote:
In the wake of the scandal surrounding the Obama administration's half-billion-dollar loan to failed solar company Solyndra

You argue first one way because you really don't like Obama.
Then you argue the other way with Romney, what is it?

You can argue that both are bad investments, or argue that investment in the field of alternative power use is needed.

I for one think alternative energy is needed, and on case base, almost all investments are bad, but in the long run what else can we do?

Thorium reactors, fission reactors, Solar Tower's, etc. etc, are all mostly (potential) bad investments, but i still think we should do research in those fields anyway.

And also let put our heads together, and lets work together, the EU, US and Asia, and start building prototypes and see whats the most efficient alternative energy source to oil.
Yeah lots of money is going to get wasted, so what, we wast way more money now fighting over oil & gas reserves.

The US alone just wasted trillions over it, as most conflict in the middle east are basted on control over oil & gas, starting with operation AJAX in the 50's, and still continue till to day.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe41.h...

As even i working in the oil, and making good money from it, and i know from working in places like Nigeria and middle east, there is a lot of dirty politics and corruption when it comes to oil, and no one has clean hands!
And oil in the long run is a dead end as a energy source and we could use all oil we have left now for better use as our grandchildren still also have use for it, is it not for fuel, they certainly have use for plastic's and lubrication and many other chemical uses.


RE: Almost
By kraeper on 10/26/2011 3:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
Also of note: Sure, foreign oil dependence is bad. Electric cars all require rare-earth magnets. Rare-earth is mined only in China, and they just stopped shipping it to shore up prices.

I like EVs in general, but to make a national-security argument by trading one foreign dependency for another is silly.


RE: Almost
By Starcub on 10/26/2011 6:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
Rare earths are also in the Americas, Africa, and Afganistan. In short, they can be obtained from easily corruptible/accessible sources.


Choice
By Shig on 10/26/2011 12:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an American, I want CHOICES other than oil based products, even if they cost more and they cost me tax money.

The ~50,000$ (after tax credit) Tesla model S rivals a Maserati in looks, gets 160 miles per charge, and compares to a bently in handling, oh yeah and it beats the BMW M5 in performance, all while costing you less to drive.

Romney is nothing more than a vantriloquist dummy that says whatever the people who pay his campaign finances (big coal).




RE: Choice
By Raiders12 on 10/26/2011 1:14:18 PM , Rating: 3
But you have to take a govt handout to make it affordable


RE: Choice
By BZDTemp on 10/26/2011 2:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think you have to much fate in what the Model S offers plus beating a Bentley in handling is not really saying much.

I do however agree with you when it comes to Romney unfortunately the field of Republicans is so weak/hopeless that he may be the least useless. Still hopefully it's only a question of which republican is gonna be the looser vs. Obama (not that he is flawless).


RE: Choice
By Spuke on 10/26/2011 2:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you have to much fate in what the Model S offers plus beating a Bentley in handling is not really saying much.
The Model S is not going to be selling in Camry numbers, until that happens, cars like these are ALWAYS going to appeal to a small niche. And in reality, even 50,000 units a year is niche (look up the numbers on a Nissan Versa sometime...that's mainstream and only scratching that surface).


RE: Choice
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Still hopefully it's only a question of which republican is gonna be the looser vs. Obama


So wait, you actually think Obama should win? You really want that to happen?

I thought you had a shred of intelligence BZD, but apparently I'm a bad judge of character.


RE: Choice
By Etsp on 10/26/2011 10:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
You are a bad judge of character. You judge character based upon who someone votes for.

I voted for Obama. That doesn't mean that I am stupid. I'm seriously disappointed in how he's handled the job. That doesn't mean I'm intelligent. If you measure intelligence by comparing how much someone agrees with your own opinions, then you commit yourself to close-mindedness and willful ignorance. After all, why listen to the opinions of a moron?

Ignorance is the cause of this political mess of government that we're dealing with. Not Idealism, not Socialism, not Capitalism, not Libertarianism. Ignorance. People refuse to see truth in something that will add a burden on them, especially when there's someone else stating loudly something false that makes them feel better. (Glenn Beck is one notable example.)

There are a large number of "Inconvenient Truths" that people set aside because they don't want to face it. (I do find it ironic that a movie named "An inconvenient Truth" contains nothing of the sort.)

Politicians get elected based on what's marketable and catchy. Not on what is true. Obama is certainly an example of this. So was Bush, so was Clinton.


RE: Choice
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2011 10:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
Obama didn't have the qualifications or experience to be President. If for nothing OTHER than that fact, forgetting whatever platform he had, you voted irresponsibly.

quote:
I'm seriously disappointed in how he's handled the job.


Yes but that's the difference between you and him. You recognize that.


RE: Choice
By Etsp on 10/27/2011 1:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
Palin doesn't have the qualifications or experience to be vice-president, let alone president. McCain is not young, though in good health. The odds that he would die before his term was up were high enough to make that a major factor.

I'd say voting for McCain would have just as irresponsible. It's a shame too, I really liked him as a candidate. Just made a poor choice of a running mate.


RE: Choice
By Reclaimer77 on 10/27/2011 12:22:20 PM , Rating: 1
Bullshit. Senators get the best medical care money can buy. He's still alive isn't he and in apparent good health. Unless he had some illness or terminal disease, this whole "don't vote for someone who's old cause he'll die" bullcrap is a mean spirited baseless attack.

The healthiest looking young guy you've ever seen can fall over and die at any moment from any number of things. It happens every day. Or someone who eats crap and smokes for 60 years can outlive us all, look at George Burns. Clinton scarfing down Big Mac's while jogging, hell, I never once heard a Liberal say "don't reelect him, he could die"

As far as Vice President, who cares really? The Vice President doesn't DO ANYTHING. Hell please tell me how that witless wonder Bidden is any better than Palin would have been. What's he done for us exactly?

Even a dead McCain with Palin as acting President would be better than what we have now. Obama is the WORST EVER. It's just not possible to do a worst job than he's done. I never dreamed in all my years I would live to see a President who could be a bigger fuckup than Carter.


RE: Choice
By Ryrod on 10/27/2011 3:36:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Bullshit. Senators get the best medical care money can buy. He's still alive isn't he and in apparent good health. Unless he had some illness or terminal disease, this whole "don't vote for someone who's old cause he'll die" bullcrap is a mean spirited baseless attack.


You must be talking about the socialist healthcare system that Congressional members have, right? As for age, it does matter. You should look at the before and after pictures of our past presidents. For every year in office, it looks like they added three years onto their age.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/20/how-the-p...

I know you hate Huffington Post, but you can't lie with pictures. George W Bush was 54 when he took office and he looked like an average man in his mid 50s, but if you look at him in 2008, he looks worse than his father when he left office in 1992 at the age of 68. The Presidency has a terrible effect on a President's body because they are working in a high stress environment for 60+ hours a week. Anyone, regardless of their health is going to suffer from that and I would much rather have a 50yr old in the White House than a 73 year old man that is two years away from the average age of death.

quote:
Even a dead McCain with Palin as acting President would be better than what we have now. Obama is the WORST EVER. It's just not possible to do a worst job than he's done.


I don't see how anyone could say, with a straight face, that Palin would have been a better choice than Obama at the time of the election, or even now. Even members of the Republican National Committee and Republican Congresspeople had concerns about her selection as a running mate, especially after the Katie Couric interview. Just watch her statement about elections in Gaza. Even after the election, she made ridiculous statements that were not based in reality and has recounted a fictional US history time and time again. I can understand if she states her opinion about what we should do with the US, but if she can't recount facts and history that no one disputes, then she is not qualified in my book.


RE: Choice
By supamark on 10/27/2011 5:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
McCain picking Palin for vice president was when I eliminated him from consideration. His hankerin' to attack Iran was the other (that would be a monumentally stupid thing to do). If you honestly think Sarah F'ing Palin would do a better job as president than Obama (or a turnip) there's something very wrong with your judgement.

btw, saying "Obama is the worst president ever" is pretty ignorant of how bad some of our presidents have been, including the last one.


RE: Choice
By BZDTemp on 10/27/2011 2:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's not that I am a fan of Obama but the alternative!

Ron Paul could in some way be another option but A. That will never happen and B. I don't know enough about what he want to be sure about him.

So it's obvious you want a new president but who?


RE: Choice
By Reclaimer77 on 10/27/2011 2:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ah man..did I read something wrong or was something you wrote not clear?

Either way, I apologize. That's what I took what I thought you said that way lol. Cause you're always so level headed and intelligent, I respect you, and when I read that I was just shocked.

quote:
So it's obvious you want a new president but who?


I feel any answer will draw criticism, plus I was raised to never discuss who one is going to vote for :P However, like I said, either one of the main 3 Republicans running are just fine with me. There's just no way anyone could do a worst job than Obama.


RE: Choice
By Ringold on 10/26/2011 5:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm an American, I want CHOICES other than oil based products, even if they cost more and they cost me tax money.


Must respect the fact then that a large number of your fellow citizens would like to vote against you using the police power of the state to extract the money from them necessary to fund your boondoggle.

quote:
his campaign finances (big coal).


Troll. As if that's his only donor. Wall Street money tended to flow to Obama in 08', gonna blast him for that too?


Look..
By espaghetti on 10/26/2011 1:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
Politics is fast becoming a game of money laundering.
Both sides of the isle are dragging us down a road that is so crystal clear if you look back over history.
They keep us bickering over how government money gets made and spent. Meanwhile they are in the back rooms stuffing their pockets with cash.
Where were these people educated?
Who were their mentors?
It won't end well unless we stop the people who teach this trash to our children.




RE: Look..
By fic2 on 10/26/2011 1:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
becoming? Where have you been?


Capitalism has nothing to do with Patriotism
By estarkey7 on 10/26/2011 4:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
We often bash the government because of the unemployment rate and pull out the regular talking points of taxes , regulations et all. But as long as they have manual labor for $1/hr and no environmental policy in third world countries, what company do you know will spend more money on labor when they don't have to?

And it's not just manual labor either, as an MSEE (Master's Degree Electrical Engineer) cost $25K in China and $80K in the states.

With the 'World is Flat' view, if I can get labor for less than half, why make jobs in America? When you compare the salary difference to the tax increase (China's corporate tax is 25%, where the U.S. is up to 38%), and remember taxes are only on profits, salary trumps taxes every time.

Wiki article with world tax rates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_...

Plain and simple: Corporations don't care about countries, they just care about profits, hence Capitalism has nothing to do with Patriotism.

If you want to invoke change, stop spending your dwindling paycheck with companies that ship jobs overseas, or at least don't ship as many (everyone is guilty of that in some way shape or form).




By Ringold on 10/26/2011 5:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
An MSEE trained in the US is also probably worth that price premium, and for jobs that require it, I'm sure companies understand that -- or quickly find out the hard way.

Also, a weird example to pick, since at least where I am locally I've seen jobs for such skilled folk posted for years. Siemens and others say its taking 18 months in many cases to filled skilled labor jobs in the US. Our unemployment problem is largely structural; ie, a skills mismatch between those needed by jobs in this new century and those people actually have and went to college for. (Need more MSEE's, fewer Psych majors)


flaw?
By fic2 on 10/26/2011 12:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately, his commentary also has two substantial flaws, factual inaccuracies aside.

Second, Mr. Romney's commentary is somewhat ironic given his own ties to firms that received bailout money.


I am not sure I would say this is ironic. I would say disingenuous though.
I also would not count this as a "flaw".

I have to agree with him though that the gov't shouldn't be playing venture capitalist. At least the venture capitalists get a lot of money if the company succeeds. The risky deals that the gov't backs we, the tax payer, are lucky if the "investment" money gets paid back even if it turns out to be a good investment. If the politicians insist on playing VC at least write the contract like a VC and end up owning half the company.

Oh, and the last I heard the auto companies "paid back" their gov't loans using other gov't loans. Kind of like declaring you are debt free when you used your Visa to pay off your MC. It is how the gov't does accounting though.




1st Amendment
By Ringold on 10/26/2011 5:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
The one and only case I've come across where I think ignoring the 1st amendment is a great idea: campaign finance.

Cap donations from individuals at, say, $100. Ban PACs, SuperPACs, corporate campaign donations, etc.

Starved of money, and reliant on donations from the bulk of the people versus big numbers from a small number of donors, hopefully that'd clean politics up... JUST a tad.

At least, I fail to see how it'd hurt. Clean up K-street while they're at it, too. I don't see how cleaning up that kind of sleaze infringes on peoples right to petition their government.

It'll never happen, though, not unless tea-party fanatics somehow became a majority in both chambers and adopted the idea.




Hit piece
By Dorkyman on 10/26/11, Rating: -1
"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki