backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by Quadrillity.. on Jun 29 at 12:39 PM

Senators fear Fiskercould default on giant government loans

The United States government granted a number of loans to different high-tech startups in an attempt to kick start innovation and research into alternative fuel and power. Among the companies that received these loans were Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors. Tesla Motors has been undeniably successful and recently launched its Model S and made deliveries to the first buyers of the electric vehicle.
 
Fisker Automotive, however, hasn’t been as fruitful. The auto company has experienced issues with battery packs that had to be replaced, and a test vehicle loaned to Consumer Reports “died” with just a few hundred miles on the odometer.
 
As the recipient of a government loan, U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley R-Iowa and Senator John Thune, R-South Dakota are now questioning Energy Secretary Steven Chu about why a loan was made to Fisker Automotive considering it is partly owned by Qatar Investment Authority, a foreign-owned company.
 
The letter to Chu read in part, "Why should the American taxpayer have to accept the credit risk of a company owned by a foreign government?"

 Fisker Karma

The Energy Department loaned Fisker Automotive $529 million and awarded battery supplier A123 $249 million in grants. A Fisker spokesperson responded by stating that the company sold more than 1,000 cars globally and generated more than $100 million in revenue. The spokesman also stated that Fisker was focused on creating American jobs.
 
Fisker has already announced delays in producing its lower-cost family sedan due to setbacks with the battery packs for the plug-in hybrid vehicle. Battery supplier A123 is replacing 600 battery packs in Fisker Karma vehicles at a cost of $55 million after manufacturing flaws were found in the batteries.
 
The letter from the Senators also asked, "Will DOE consider A123's ongoing financial struggles before distributing the rest of the grant?"
 
A123 intends to hire as many as 400 new employees in the coming months, as was a condition of receiving the state and federal money. The company currently has about 780 workers in Michigan. 

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

Anyone need an extra billion?
By Oakley516 on 6/27/2012 2:50:59 PM , Rating: 1
Fisker: $529 million (Federal)
A123: $249 million (Federal)
A123: $125 million (State)
Total: $903 million

Almost a billion dollars loaned to start a car company. If only Preston Tucker was around today, think of what he could build with all this free money being handed out.




RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By gamerk2 on 6/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By Cerin218 on 6/27/2012 4:00:22 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you John Keynes. You have to spend money to make money right? Thinking like yours is why we have 17 trillion in debt. But then again most of the Keynesian's won't acknowledge the flaws in their economic model. Like the government isn't very good at setting market priorities. And when the government is running a deficit, more spending equals more debt. especially in the long term. You want people to have more money? Lower their taxes. Taxes are what it costs a person to work. But of course you can't lower taxes because the government needs to waste more money buying favor. Or doing stupid things like supporting ethanol. If the government would require less, we would all have more. But most of you don't understand that. You want the government to do more so that you have to do less, which requires more resources from you in the long run.

You can balance the budget AND create jobs. But you can't do it by increasing spending when your income has decreased.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By Quadrillity on 6/27/2012 4:04:55 PM , Rating: 1
That is the type of flawed thinking that will eventually destroy this nation. A Recession is merely a market status; lazy citizens who get paid to not work is a mindset.... and one that will bring us to another civil war before long.

It's not that there is a shortage of jobs. There is just a shortage of people who are willing to work those jobs.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By mindless1 on 6/27/2012 9:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
or there are a shortage of companies willing to pay a livable wage - big difference. Except for part-time after school type jobs, a person working even the lowliest job should make enough to be able to support themselves, let alone support a family if both parents work.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By knutjb on 6/28/2012 1:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
Your gross misconception of entry level jobs. They are just that, entry level and NOT intended to support a family.

Your concept that there must be a survivable income from the lowliest of jobs is delusional. Or that whoever choses to to work a lowliest job some how deserves to receive a livable income. That is a text book cart before the horse argument.

The "shortage of companies" as you put it is an indirect reaction to poor government policies and leadership. The government doesn't create jobs, government jobs siphon off the private sector, both fiscally and manpower. Too big of government, too great of drain on the economy.

Government creates the environment that enables or hinders the potential success of a business. Excess rules and regulations hinder. Predictable, simple rules enable. We cannot fix every single perceived problem through government regulation. If this mass of regulation were so wonderful we should have a booming economy by now with incredible wages for flipping burgers.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By maugrimtr on 6/28/2012 10:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
Are you delusional? If I had no job, why would I take on a job that can't support a basic lifestyle (food & lodging for me and my dependents)? Where does the rest of the cash needed to support myself come from? What about the expenses of working (transport, etc.)? Not to mention that some right-wind folk suggest I also pay tax on whatever unlivable income I might get...

"Entry level" jobs indeed. They are utterly pointless to people unless they have the savings/support to survive to get past the entry level term.

As for the shortage of companies, it directly related to a lack of consumer spending (because people are earning less, saving more, and fewer have jobs) - regulation has barely shifted in a handful of years so trotting down out never makes sense. It is not driving the current unemployment rate - the global recession did that quite handily.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By AssBall on 6/28/2012 10:40:12 AM , Rating: 2
In your messed up version of economics, the egg laid the chicken. Nothing you said is remotely reasonable.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By WalksTheWalk on 6/28/2012 1:43:07 PM , Rating: 3
If you have no job and are in dire need of one, are you going to not take an entry level job to provide sustenance while you look for a better job or do you expect to suck at the teat of government while waiting for the job you want?

Entry level jobs are there to provide initial experience for better jobs at a later date. If all entry level jobs provided the means to support a "lifestlye" there is no incentive to improve your position. It's up to the person to find there way from an entry level job to a "lifestyle" supporting job. (Note that lifestyle is a completely subjective term.)

Once a person has a better job, it's up to them to balance their spending with their saving so they have something to fall back on if they ever lose their job. This is called "contingency planning" and it's something many Americans ignore completely because they are hooked on big government assistance.


By Quadrillity on 6/28/2012 5:13:04 PM , Rating: 3
BINGO! Nail on the head


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By mindless1 on 6/29/2012 5:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
You are merely describing the way things are, not the way things work well.

The way things are is the problem, is why people are on welfare and potential labor is wasted along with money to support them.

Think about it. If we as a society are spending hundreds or more a month to support someone through welfare, that money didn't grow on a tree, it could have gone even further to provide additional wages. It's all a matter of where the money comes from and where it goes. Yes a McDonalds hamburger might cost a little more but I could be paying less taxes to offset that, a win/win situation instead of THE WAY THINGS ARE which is that minimum wage doesn't serve any useful purpose being this low except to exploit the poor. They don't like being treated like less than human beings so they say "fvck it".

It's very simple. People will do what they perceive benefits them. To get people off welfare you need to pay them enough that they feel it's of benefit to work. If you just pull welfare out from under them instead you then end up with more crime instead so we pay to incarcerate people which is yet another failure we have in society, a huge penal system.


By Quadrillity on 6/29/2012 12:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
So we shouldn't force people to do the right thing because they might increase the crime rate? That is faulty and absurd logic. I agree that we should rethink our justice system in this nation, and we can start with more serious punishments for capital crimes like rape, murder, etc. If you are given the death penalty, you should only have one appeal, and that should be speedy. None of this "waiting on death row for 20 years" bullcrap.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By FITCamaro on 6/28/2012 8:13:38 AM , Rating: 2
If you make minimum wage, you're not supposed to have a family. The minimum wage was never intended to be something you raise a family off of. You're supposed to start your working life at minimum wage and move up. Not stay there your entire life. But now our government is trying to convince people that there is no need to go and get a better job. Just stay in your shit job, receive public assistance your entire life, and, oh yeah, vote Democrat if you want to keep it all.

All the raises of the minimum wage have ever done is cost people jobs, raise prices, cause inflation, and help kill retail stores since they can't afford (especially in a bad economy) to adequately staff their stores and still keep prices low to compete with online businesses.

Minimum wages should only exist at the state level, not the federal level. Because every state's circumstances are different. A $10/hr minimum wage(as some Democrats are currently pushing for) is absurd in Florida because the cost of living is much lower than that of a place like New York. And even then, inside the borders of a state the cost of living greatly varies between urban environments and more rural ones.

A minimum wage should err on the low side so as not to create hardships for areas where costs are lower and the wage would harm businesses.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By mindless1 on 6/29/2012 4:19:39 AM , Rating: 2
That's just nonsense the rich have fed you through media for years.

Any person should have enough pay to support themselves. Anything less is slavery.

Raises of minimum wage do not cost jobs, the demand for the goods and services exist either way and if a company can't survive paying a wage to workers, the OTHER company that can survive, does. A business needs X # of employees to get the work done and will push them to produce regardless of whether paying them $7/hr or $20/hr.

Online businesses also need to pay more than minimum wage, your example of competing with retail stores is pointless as they will always have higher overhead, will only compete through superior service but how do you offer superior service? By paying a higher wage so you attract quality, skilled people.

Businesses are not harmed, there is still competition because everywhere the minimum goes up.

All raising the minimum wage really does is decrease profits for the rich but you have been brainwashed to believe otherwise. Inflation cannot rise in tune with minimum rate increases, it is impossible as this creates an additional consumer base that PAYS FOR MORE goods and services, AND GETS PEOPLE OFF WELFARE.

Don't believe the nonsense spread by the wealthy. Isn't it obvious enough that if they are against something it's because it benefits someone else at their expense?

We've tried it your way and there is now a greater disparity than ever between the poor and the wealthy with the middle class struggling harder than ever. Will the country have to collapse and revolt before you see the obviousness of the situation?

I can't agree about minimum wage varying by state. If people earn enough to support themselves then they can move to any state they like and pay the going rate for goods and services there. Choice instead of slavery.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By TSS on 6/27/2012 5:11:56 PM , Rating: 4
People spending money doesn't create jobs, neither does the government. Demand creates jobs. Think of it this way: if all the money spent in the US was spent in 1 state while the others where all broke, the same amount of money would be spent, while there would be a magnitude of fewer jobs as anybody outside of that state would have few to none.

So can the government create demand? No. It can only increase or decrease demand or supply. The best example is the past few years, where there has been lackluster demand while the government has been spending extraordinairy amounts of money. That's simply because they have to spend alot to enhance the little demand that's still left.

If the people all where to suddenly like coca cola, then that would increase demand for coca-cola, which would prompt the company to hire more people for more production = creating jobs.

The government could subsidise coca-cola, increasing supply thus lowering prices to stimulate the economy because then people can spend that money elsewhere, while they have to pay taxes anyway. But if nobody buys coca-cola because they don't like it, and the government tries to stimulate consumption by lowering coca-cola prices through subsidy, then they're only aggrivating the negative demand by making coca-cola even less profitable.

Neither Government nor People create wealth. Demand creates wealth, supply destroys wealth, and the 2 like to be in equillibrium. People and government just shift it around. (PS if you have trouble seperating "demand" from "people", just think of "people" as a collection of individuals while demand is a single entity with a single mind, which happens to be made up out of the same humans as we define under "people").


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By tayb on 6/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By JediJeb on 6/27/2012 7:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to take into account the ridiculous amount of federal regulations placed on employers/manufacturers in this country. That also drives companies out of the country because it increases their operating expenses. We reduced taxes on the rich/companies hoping they would spend it in the "trickle down" yet increased their cost of doing business and took back all the money placed into the system by the lower taxes.

quote:
According to the Office of the Federal Register, in 1998, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the official listing of all regulations in effect, contained a total of 134,723 pages in 201 volumes that claimed 19 feet of shelf space. In 1970, the CFR totaled only 54,834 pages.


The current page count in approximately 150,000 pages.

quote:
The General Accountability Office (GAO) reports that in the four fiscal years from 1996 to 1999, a total of 15,286 new federal regulations went into effect. Of these, 222 were classified as "major" rules, each one having an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million


In four fiscal years the government added at least a $22.2billion dollar burden on the economy just through those few major regulations out of the total. How much more did the other 15,064 regulations cost our economy?

Maybe trickle down economics could work, if the government didn't turn around and take away every bit of the extra money lowering the taxes placed back into circulation. There are more things than just taxes and spending we need to get under control in this country.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By FITCamaro on 6/28/2012 8:18:22 AM , Rating: 2
One thing I always laugh/cry at is the fact how liberals like to brag how they understand the world better and how we're a global economy. Yet their policies of tax the rich and corporations more don't work in a global economy. Businesses can move elsewhere to where their tax burden is less while losing few, if any, customers. The rich can move their money elsewhere so its not taxed.

Maybe in the 1940s when individuals and companies really had very little ability to move around wherever they wanted high taxes were possible. But today if you try to steal 90% of someone's labor (income), they'll just go somewhere else that doesn't. Because they can.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2012 8:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
Argh I wish I could remember their names! Back in the 1960's a Liberal think-tank came up with a theory that you could destroy Capitalism, make it fail, if you placed enough regulatory burden, red tape, and Federal mandates on the system.

If we're not witnessing that in living color today, I don't know what. Sometimes when I look at this Administrations actions and the Marxist running it, I wonder if that's not the whole point..


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By praktik on 6/28/2012 8:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
Marxist??

Reclaimer77 buddy - I know that kind of stuff has currency on the shuffleboard court and the early-bird buffet, but the rest of the world has moved on from the Cold War era and I think you'll find that the commie threat comes across as a somewhat ridiculous anachronism of a bygone era - kinda like people worrying about the "Irish threat" in the 1800s... something that scared a lot of old people back in the day, but doesn't really mean anything today.

There are innumerable ways we can demonstrate that Obama is not a Marxist, perhaps the easiest indicator is the fact that the "far left" is seriously disappointed with Obama and there is lots of coverage of how unenthused the "hard left" is with Obama's policies to date. Wouldn't the far left be LOVING Obama if he was truly a Marxist?

The fact they castigate him as a Wall Street sell-out, with some reason, should be one indicator that your Cold War programming is finding it difficult to process the current political environment.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2012 10:53:39 AM , Rating: 2
So we should judge him on how others react to his policies, in some arbitrary and myopic sampling? Just because there are insane people out there who don't think he's gone far enough, doesn't mean his policies should meet our approval.

I also reject your categorization that people using the word "Marxist" must be Cold War holdovers. I specifically recall using "marxist", NOT Communist. And I'm speaking about his political and economic leanings, not some "red scare". Be serious.

And it's just a buzzword. It doesn't matter if we say "Marxist" or Socialist or Kensyian. It all springs from the same well. Obama is a Marxist. Just because he hasn't been able to transform America into a Marxist state in 4 years is irrelevant. We can't allow him another 4 to try and get it right. He's already done enough.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By praktik on 6/28/2012 11:02:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So we should judge him on how others react to his policies, in some arbitrary and myopic sampling? Just because there are insane people out there who don't think he's gone far enough, doesn't mean his policies should meet our approval.


Nope. I listed that as one small example, among many, that could be marshalled to prove he is not a Marxist... however since we do not share the same language, I don't think we can productively discuss this issues since you said:

quote:
It doesn't matter if we say "Marxist" or Socialist or Kensyian. It all springs from the same well.


So if you were REALLY saying he is a Keynesian (moving goalposts) then sure, there's a credible argument to be made there...

Since you see no distinction however, between Keynesian economic thought, the wide umbrella of socialist politics and the narrow realm of Marxism (a subset of communism) and see no difference between what are distinct vectors of political thought, we can't really talk.

It would be like me and a bio-physics PHD talking about nano manipulation of proteins - I couldn't talk to him about that cause I don't understand the basic tenets of his science.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2012 11:32:53 AM , Rating: 1
Here's a news flash: I didn't ask you to "discuss" anything with me. Since you are no doubt in favor of Obama, or go out of your way to defend him, we have nothing to say to each other.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By praktik on 6/28/2012 11:41:11 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Reclaimer77 - the 50's called, they want their paranoid McCarthyism back!!

And for the record, I am no partisan for Obama, nor even an American (just across the lake from you lot) - if I had my druthers we'd be looking at a 3rd party President since both parties aren't much more than whores for cash and political expediency.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By praktik on 6/28/2012 11:50:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since you are no doubt in favor of Obama, or go out of your way to defend him, we have nothing to say to each other.


Interesting that the identification of someone as potentially being somewhere other than where you are on the political spectrum is your ground for deciding a conversation would not be fruitful. This is a sad admission to make since it means you do not challenge your assumptions by honestly engaging with people who think differently than you - and this behaviour is a huge part of why politics is so f*cked up for you guys these days!

In my case, I think we can't speak productively not because you self-identify as a conservative, but because you don't have an understanding of what the myriad of differences are between different strands of socialism, keynesian economics and communism. It would be like discussing colour with the colour-blind. I could however, discuss these issues with someone who has a basic understanding of political science yet is a staunch conservative. Perhaps my library of old Commentary/Weekly Standard and other conservative publications and literature would convince you of that fact, but I'm not counting on an honest foot forward from someone looking for excuses to stay in their bubble (a bubble devoid of some of the basic facets of the political spectrum)


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2012 12:22:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Interesting that the identification of someone as potentially being somewhere other than where you are on the political spectrum is your ground for deciding a conversation would not be fruitful.


Because it never is. You don't think I've done it hundreds of times? The end result of two ideologies slamming against each other is always the same.

quote:
In my case, I think we can't speak productively not because you self-identify as a conservative, but because you don't have an understanding of what the myriad of differences are between different strands of socialism, keynesian economics and communism.


That was never the discussion. You MADE it the discussion. Read my original post again, and actually look at the context and what I was speaking about. You never even attempted to discuss the TOPIC with me.

I'm really tired of being dragged into a pointless derailment about the meaning of terms anyway. Fine, let's settle on "Progressive" if that makes you happy. Which guess what? Has roots in ALL of those strands of socialism.

I don't care if Obama is a Marxist, Socialist, or a Martian. The point is, he's bad for the country. His policies have been disastrous. And the debt and bloat he's saddled us with will be with us long after he's out of office.

I'm glad you feel so superior to me and that gets you through the day. But I'm not impressed by your smugness, your inability to understand the context of the discussion, and your superiority complex.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By praktik on 6/28/2012 12:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because it never is. You don't think I've done it hundreds of times? The end result of two ideologies slamming against each other is always the same.


No I totally believe you've done it hundreds of times!

I just think there is tons of value in engaging with people who have completely different politics and outlooks - the most rewarding thing is finding those little bits of common ground, that you support a policy or idea the other person supports, but for completely different reasons! There is always more than one route to the same place and I think a policy is stronger for having competing political outlooks collaborate... rather than attempting to purify the landscape in an eternal battle with "the enemy", who obviously is not worth talking to cause well, they might think a particular Keynesian approach makes sense in some places and times....

Good luck with your Holy War! Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance!


By Reclaimer77 on 6/28/2012 3:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
You misunderstand. Such discussions can be very enjoyable and revealing, IN person or at the very least over the phone. Over the Internet? Not so much.

quote:
Good luck with your Holy War! Remember, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance!


The more insulting, condescending remarks like this you make, the more hypocritical you appear. Because you're showing yourself as someone who would NOT be an enjoyable and open minded debater. You've accused me of McCarthyism and evoking Communism, which I've not done. You've portrayed me as some radical because of terminology you don't agree with, you've not once taken the high road or even given me the benefit of the doubt.


By WalksTheWalk on 6/28/2012 2:01:18 PM , Rating: 1
I think Reclaimer77 said:

quote:
Oh, you English are *so* superior, aren't you? Well, would you like to know what you'd be without us, the good ol' U.S. of A. to protect you? I'll tell you. The smallest fucking province in the Russian Empire, that's what! So don't call me stupid, lady. Just thank me.


- Otto; A Fish Called Wanda


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By KoS on 6/28/2012 2:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's the same concept that the two Columbia Univ professors have and are pushing...cloward and piven. Overwhelm the system so it collapses!


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By KoS on 6/28/2012 2:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's the same concept that the two professors from Columbia have promoted and are still trying to achieve....Cloward and Piven.

Overwhelm the system so it collapses.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By KoS on 6/28/2012 2:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
Oops..double post. :(


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By TSS on 6/27/2012 8:23:04 PM , Rating: 3
No, that's part of the warped state of capitalism today, looking at stuff the other way around.

There will still be demand for food, even if people cannot spend money on it. When people cannot afford food, they will steal food. Because you need food to live.

Demand is not what people what, but what people need. You only demand stuff you need, you ASK for stuff you want. They might not need things to live, but they need it none the less. Something that brings convenience in a stressed life and thus frees up time for relaxation is very much needed, for instance. It's not going to kill you if you don't get it, but the need is real.

Get it through your head: Money isn't everything. In fact, money is NOTHING. thin air, even less then thin air, digital bits on a PC we've decided is the right one. It's not even a commodity, as it relies on the comodity it's traded against to actually have value. Money is like an instantly redeemable contract, nothing more.

Demand and Supply, however, are intrinsic to human nature. If my tummy demands food, i need to supply it with food.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By FITCamaro on 6/28/2012 8:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
Demand is both for things you need and things you want.

The problem with America right now is too many people prioritize the things they want over the things they need. They go out and buy all the things they want, and then complain when they don't have enough money for the things they need.

Instead of going out and buying health insurance, they buy expensive cell phones, cars, TVs, etc. Instead of making sure they have the tools (education) to get a good job, they do the things they want. And then they or others (largely liberals) blame someone else for it.

Go drive around a poor neighborhood and tell me how many new or relatively new cars you see in driveways. Or cars with giant, expensive rims and massive stereos. I'm sure if you went in many of their homes, many would have nearly as nice things as someone who makes far more than they do. If not even nicer.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By tayb on 6/27/2012 5:10:54 PM , Rating: 1
And yet that $903 million that has been LOANED (do you know what a loan is?) is roughly 0.13% (that's a fraction of a percent) of the annual "defense" budget. To put it another way... we spend, not loan, 761 TIMES as much per year on "defense" as we loaned out to Fisker TOTAL.

So...

Loaning $903 million to a company that creates products, employs workers, and generates revenue = HORRIBLE.

Spending $687.3 billion ANNUALLY on defense = OKAY.

If I get to pick, which I don't, I would rather fund Fisker.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By JediJeb on 6/27/2012 6:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
Loaning to Fisker only pays off if they remain in business and are able to repay the loan. If not then it becomes no different than the spending on defense, except for the fact that spending on defense does help protect the country while spending on Fisker if it defaults does not.

Is there wasteful defense spending, yes, but there is also necessary and useful defense spending, just as this loan will be useful if Fisker can pay it back, but it will be wasteful if they can not. And as for it creating jobs, between the two that is nullified since spending on both military and Fisker create jobs and feed some of that money back into the economy. The big question is how much (percentage wise) of each goes to domestic versus foreign entities? Also if Fisker is partly owned by Qatar, why would they need a loan in the first place?


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By AssBall on 6/27/2012 6:36:28 PM , Rating: 1
So you would rather pay 700 americans $1.2 million each to make a broken piece of shit no one wants than pay $110,000 people (not including contractors and corporations (boeing, ratheon, lockheed, etc also employ thousands of people) around $60,000 to run some of the most sophisticated technology mankind has yet to produce.?

You should be a politician.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By mindless1 on 6/27/2012 9:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
Except you overlooked one crucial detail. We have to have defense funding. This loan is part of a larger problem, the policies of the government to loan not just to this company but it is one of thousands getting hand-outs to build things or provide services that the average american does not benefit from nearly as much as the rich do.

Fisker builds toy cars for the rich. I suspect the rich already have cars, no?


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By praktik on 6/28/2012 6:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
Technically correct - defense is a necessity. So some amount of defense spending is necessary... But is defense spending over the combined amount of the next 16 nations in a given year necessary?

These guys offer an interesting perspective on the graft and waste in US defense spending: http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.ca/2012/02/pent...


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By FITCamaro on 6/28/2012 8:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
Considering we protect over 16 other nations with that military, yes.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By praktik on 6/28/2012 8:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
Right and defense spending is such a paragon of efficiency you couldn't do your World Policing for say, the combined budgets of the next 3 nations??


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By FITCamaro on 6/28/2012 8:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
No the crucial detail is that defense is a mandated duty of the federal government per the constitution.

No where though does it say anything about the federal government having the authority to become venture capitalists.


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By praktik on 6/28/2012 6:58:09 AM , Rating: 2
OR we could talk about the billions given to very successful companies that don't need it in the form of subsidies and tax breaks to companies with yearly profits in the billions...

Sure let's put scrutiny on spending and all of these types of corporate welfare - but let's not pretend that this particular instance is cherry picked for partisan advantage, and very small potatoes...


RE: Anyone need an extra billion?
By Slaimus on 6/29/2012 12:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
It is very expensive to do R&D on cars. Chrysler spent $1B just on their current 3.6L V6 engine, for example.


By Cerin218 on 6/27/2012 4:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
What ever happened to banks loaning money based in the qualification of the applicants ability to pay the loan back?

Isn't that how we got into the whole sub prime mortgage thing? And yet we trust the government to make financial decisions?

The government isn't a good financial steward. It's why they are called government and not BUSINESS!!




By praktik on 6/28/2012 7:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
Actually there are plenty of examples of sound government economic management.

Singapore is one great example, but closer to home Canada weathered the financial crisis fairly well - mainly based on a conservative approach/temperament that didn't see them go all in on the Casino you guys were running for a few decades...

The main reason the American government is a poor financial steward is that it has spent decades increasing risk and loosening controls.


By KoS on 6/28/2012 2:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
Simply, the American federal governemnt, spend more than it took in. Combine with taking on responsiblilties that it shouldn't have, instead of letting the states and/or the individual take care of it.


Where does your money go?
By thejerk on 6/27/2012 6:12:38 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Just so everyone has the information readily available.




RE: Where does your money go?
By knutjb on 6/28/2012 1:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
Great left wing drivel...


Strange
By Ammohunt on 6/27/2012 2:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
Still can't buy an Edsel i wonder why?




What the fuuuuuu
By AssBall on 6/27/2012 4:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
So it costs them $92,000 to replace each battery?

SRSLY who is dumb enough to invest in this junk except the US government?




I wonder
By Rage187 on 6/27/2012 4:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder which Obama fundraiser has ties to Fisker?

What did you expect from a politician from Chicago? Corruption, vote buying and cover up.




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














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