backtop


Print 73 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Sep 26 at 11:04 PM


Fisker Karma
This is the same program that funded Fisker Automotive

South Dakota's Republican senator wants to terminate the federal loan program that gave millions of dollars to Fisker Automotive -- an automaker that has failed to produce a car in over a year and is now missing loan payments to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 

According to The Detroit News, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) wants to get rid of the $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program due to failures like Fisker Automotive wasting taxpayer money. He has already proposed an amendment that would “permanently end the ATVM program and save taxpayers from paying for more of President Obama’s bad green-energy bets.”

Thune's amendment comes after the DOE said it would auction off Fisker Automotive's $168 million unpaid loan earlier this week. DOE plans to launch the auction in early October. 

Fisker Automotive is an auto startup that received $529 million in DOE loans back in April 2010. However, Fisker fell a little behind on its production schedule, and in May 2011, DOE froze the loans due to "unmet milestones." Fisker had only drawn $193 million of it at that point. It hasn't been able to build a car since July 2012, and started looking for a buyer so it doesn't have to claim bankruptcy.

But Fisker isn't the only auto company that failed after receiving money from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program. Vehicle Production Group LLC -- which is a Michigan-based startup building wheelchair-accessible compressed natural gas vehicles -- was awarded $50 million in loans back in March 2011, but has since halted production.


Senator John Thune

DOE sold its unpaid $50 million loan for Vehicle Production Group LLC to AM General for $3 million earlier this month. According to The Detroit News, taxpayers lost about $42 million on that sale.

The Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program was created by Congress in 2007 in an effort to reach the goal of 1 million EVs on U.S. roads by 2015, but the program hasn't made a new loan since March 2011. This is mainly due to the fact that two of the five companies (Fisker and Vehicle Production Group) that received government loans stopped production. 

The Obama administration received a lot of flak for these failures, but the program wasn't all bad. The other three loans -- $5.9 billion to Ford, $1.4 billion to Nissan and $465 million to EV startup Tesla Motors -- proved to be successful. Tesla even managed to pay its full sum back nine years early, which was a great feat for a startup. 

U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said last month that the Obama administration is interested in reviving the $25 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program. He noted that it plans to draw a new round of loan requests (but is not actively considering any applications for retooling loans) and reexamine its lending criteria in order to avoid problems it encountered in the past. 

Source: The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

Bad Loans
By othercents on 9/19/2013 11:25:27 AM , Rating: 4
The loans were bad loans to Fisker and Vehicle Production Group LLC. Both of those companies hadn't produced any vehicles prior to getting the loans. They were both paper companies. Tesla, Ford, and Nissan had already produced vehicles and were established. Tesla less so, but they already had the technology and design to produce their latest vehicle.




RE: Bad Loans
By amanojaku on 9/19/2013 11:32:56 AM , Rating: 3
It doesn't matter how mature or realistic the technology is. The government should not be using tax dollars to fund businesses or industries. If a company needs money, it can speak to banks or venture capital firms. I'd love to drive an electric car, but I don't love government waste.


RE: Bad Loans
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/19/2013 11:43:34 AM , Rating: 4
Doesn't the oil industry and corn industry still get big subsidies from the gov?


RE: Bad Loans
By amanojaku on 9/19/2013 11:45:24 AM , Rating: 4
Yup. And those should go, too. Subsidies come from taxes, so we're paying for it, anyway.


RE: Bad Loans
By Connoisseur on 9/19/2013 11:58:03 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe i'm bad on my history here but wasn't the railroad industry heavily government subsidized as well in its heyday? Seems to be pretty useful now.


RE: Bad Loans
By amanojaku on 9/19/13, Rating: 0
RE: Bad Loans
By Reflex on 9/19/2013 1:51:57 PM , Rating: 5
The transcontinental railroad was government backed, both in the seizure of land and the loans required to build it. It was a huge project that at the time did not make a ton of sense as commerce on the west coast was miniscule compared to the east coast, yet we spent billions connecting the two rather than letting 'private industry' do it themselves.

The Internet was much the same, it took decades before the government investment actually made any sort of sense for the average American.

Electric cars and other advanced transportation technologies are in a similar position. In another few decades it will seem obvious and we will wonder why we did not do it sooner.

Also, my bet is that New York City's drivers put more into the federal gas tax than their MTA receives out of it, and that on balance funding the MTA takes enough cars off the road that it likely is cheaper to fund the MTA than to not fund it and have the roads receive more wear and tear as a result(and require more expansion).


RE: Bad Loans
By Solandri on 9/19/2013 2:41:53 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with you about the railroads, but the Internet was a Department of Defense project. They wanted to create a nationwide communications network which would still work even if large segments of it were wiped out in a nuclear strike. There was never an expectation that it would ever be paid back in usefulness to the average American. That it turned out that way was just happenstance.

quote:
Electric cars and other advanced transportation technologies are in a similar position. In another few decades it will seem obvious and we will wonder why we did not do it sooner.

This is the problem I have with electric vehicle proponents. They are absolutely certain that EVs are the correct solution and thus are incapable of seeing any risk in investing in them.

I'm not so sure. If cellulostic ethanol is ever made to work and there isn't an order of magnitude improvement in batteries, EVs are dead. We could take all the waste plant matter we currently burn or dispose, and turn it into fuel for ICE cars. Yes it's green. Plants are basically self-propagating solar collectors who store that sunlight in the form of sugar. (Your body uses short sugars for energy. Carbohydrates like pasta are just long sugars your body can break apart into short sugars. Cellulose is an even longer sugar which most animals can't break apart into short sugars. The energy is still there though - it's why wood burns so well.)

Yes that's a big if, but it's not that big. Termites already do it (convert wood to sugars). We just need to figure out a way to do it cost-effectively on a massive industrial scale.


RE: Bad Loans
By Reflex on 9/19/2013 3:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
Waiting on holy grail projects like cellulostic ethanol is letting the 'perfect' impede the 'better'. Furthermore, even if such a process were perfected, it could just as easily, and more efficiently, be applied to biomass energy production and produce electricity at central plants rather than in the car itself.

A huge shift to electric cars would have no impact on other solutions, if they make sense they will also be able to contribute, investing in cars today that are cleaner and more efficient is smart, even if something better comes along together.


RE: Bad Loans
By M'n'M on 9/19/2013 3:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are absolutely certain that EVs are the correct solution and thus are incapable of seeing any risk in investing in them.

And if not ethanol then some other bio-fuel. Or hydrogen and fuel cells. There's been other technologies hyped by the Govt at one time or another. They all seem to fall by the wayside when the next "fad" comes along. Perhaps rightfully and perhaps just because they didn't deliver the goods in the politically expedient time available. Alas once falling out of Govt favor (and not able suckle on the Govt $-teat) it becomes hard for them to compete and realize whatever potential they may have had.


RE: Bad Loans
By Samus on 9/20/2013 4:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
The internet became a Department of Defense product. It started as an academic study.


RE: Bad Loans
By Just Tom on 9/21/2013 11:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
The redundancy built into the original ARPANET was not to survive a nuclear war but to survive crappy equipment. The purpose of the network was simply to facilitate research, nothing more. You have to remember at the time fast computers were exceedingly rare and many researchers did not have one available locally. ARPANET mitigated that to a great extent.


RE: Bad Loans
By amanojaku on 9/19/2013 2:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
I am unaware of any land seizure, although I would not be surprised. It would also be valid, falling under eminent domain, since it would benefit the nation as a whole. The only requirement would be compensation for the land owner. The subsidies were, in fact, government bonds, not taxes. This means private companies and individuals bought them and helped fund the railroads. The government would later pay back the bond owners, and this was a common practice for more than just railroads.

And it made plenty of sense to support commerce on the west coast; you forget about the gold rush, and all of the construction that surrounded it. The gold rush alone had a global impact.

The origin of the Internet was not the same as the railroads. There was no commercial intention for the Internet. It was purely for academic and research purposes, and the public could not access it. Commercial, public access to the Internet began with private companies and private funds.

As to NYC drivers, there aren't that many. There simply isn't enough space for cars. Most of the drivers come from out of state or upstate, and they park in overpriced garages. The bulk of the cars in NYC are taxis or delivery trucks. Clearly, you don't live here.


RE: Bad Loans
By Reflex on 9/19/2013 3:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
1) The transcontinental railroad was built a decade after the California gold rush, it was long over and the economy had cratered at that point. Building it to 'service the gold rush' was not a concern. It was a purely speculative endeavor, and one that ended off paying very well.

2) At the time the west coast did just fine by shipping. The railroad certainly made things cheaper, but private industry had already built a sustainable economy without it. Many of the arguments I see against EV investment are that private industry needs to be the only driver of it, that government foresight has no place in it. The same could have been said about the TR.

3) The internet was built for multiple purposes, but many people back then saw long term potential commercially. Read interviews with many of the founding developers and engineers, or simply read how Xerox viewed its potential. In the 60's and 70's lots of people involved realized and even planned for a commercial future.

And finally, I do get your point about NYC. My point is that the reason why there can be so few roads is because of the MTA. Without it, NYC would have to spend a fortune building and maintaining roads. So a small investment in the MTA saves the nation a huge investment in NYC infrastructure. Its a smart way to spend the money.


RE: Bad Loans
By amanojaku on 9/19/2013 5:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
1) The Gold Rush officially ended in 1855, but the effects were permanent (as of the time of this post, anyway; Lex Luthor might still want to blow up the west coast with nukes to create Otisburg). San Francisco went from a village or town of a few hundred to a city of thousands in just five years. California gained 300,000 new residents and became the 31st state. People flocked from all over the world, either to mine for gold, or support those who were.

The economy did not crater. It simply became impossible for individual immigrants or emigrants to mine for gold because all of the land was taken. Only large organizations could profit from gold since they owned the mines. But the economy thrived independent of gold. Agriculture and a short oil boom helped grow the economy further.

The railroad was built in response to the clearly established community, created by the Gold Rush. The railroad took six years to build, from 1863-1869, and was preceded by surveys that began in 1853. The Gold Rush was officially over, but California had established itself as an economic center.

2) I'm not sure what you mean by "did just fine by shipping". The only direct route to the west coast was to walk or ride a wagon, both of which were dangerous due to the desert and Native Americans. Shipping from east to west meant loading a boat, sending it to Colon, Panama, unloading, loading onto a train, sending it to the Port of Balboa, unloading, loading onto a boat, then sending it to San Francisco. It was time consuming and expensive when compared to a train that just went east to west.

3) The government never intended for the Internet to be commercial. It certainly didn't prevent a commercial internet, but read the acceptable use policies for NSFNET, ARPANET, etc... The individual techs may have thought of commercial uses, but the Federal Government, the financial sponsor, did not.

http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/nsfnet.htm#aup
http://www.academia.edu/1416892/Getting_Started_Co...

4) You still don't get it. New York City has plenty of roads. It's just that the place is so densely populated that it is impossible to create enough roads to support enough drivers to pay for them. The MTA was not created to reduce road creation and maintenance; it was created because without mass transit NYC simply would not function. It's not a small investment, either, and I still don't see why the entire United States is forced to pay for one city's infrastructure, trains, roads, or otherwise.


RE: Bad Loans
By Mint on 9/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: Bad Loans
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 9/19/2013 8:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
Did not governments give free or incredibly underpriced rights-of-way for railroad development?


RE: Bad Loans
By NaperJ on 9/20/2013 11:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
Having recently read the history of the Transcontinental Railroad, I'll add a few facts:
The railroads were granted 8 square miles of government land on both sides of the tracks for every other mile. While this subsidized the railroad, it also made nearly worthless government land quite valuable (except in the far west in places like Nevada). In general, the land was non confiscated, but was government land not in private ownership.
The railroads were granted all necessary lands for shops, depots, and other railroad-related purposes.
For every 20 miles of completed track, the railroad received government bonds they could resell. The railroad was responsible for paying the interest and principle at bond maturity, but this enabled them to access the bond market which would have otherwise been unaffordable.

The government was also able to close a number of forts, as the railroad allowed them to transport troops where needed faster than they could ride on horseback.


RE: Bad Loans
By Samus on 9/20/2013 4:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
If we eliminated oil subsidies, a quart of oil would cost $10 and a gallon of gas would cost $8.

Just ballparks, but realistic. We need to subsidize certain industries to maintain economic stability. Even though big oil could lose its subsidies and maintain the sale of products are current prices, their massive profits would shrink and that would be unacceptable to their investors.


RE: Bad Loans
By Motoman on 9/19/2013 11:56:28 AM , Rating: 3
If it were up to me, there'd be no such thing as government subsidies. Either an industry is commercially-viable, or it isn't.

I remember clearly being horribly confused at the age of about 8 or so, when I first recall going to visit my uncle's farm. Was all excited about it - totally had visions of Old MacDonald in my head.

We get there and the fields are all barren. In the middle of the summer. I asked my mom why this was, and then she tried to explain to me how the government was paying my uncle *not* to farm his land.

Didn't make sense then. Still doesn't make sense now.


RE: Bad Loans
By crimsonson on 9/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: Bad Loans
By Reflex on 9/19/2013 1:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
Prior to this practice farmers would do two very bad things -

1) Farm all their land every single year until the land was no longer suitable due to soil depletion
2) All farmers would farm all available land which in aggregate would collapse the price of the crops being farmed, putting huge swaths of them out of business.

The Government solution permitted a stable, sustainable long term farming industry that now produces almost as much food as the rest of the world combined. Its a huge American success story, and it could not have happened without regulation and yes, subsidy.

That does not mean that all those subsidies make sense today, only that they made absolute sense in the time they were created, and they likely still make sense in some form now.


RE: Bad Loans
By Solandri on 9/19/2013 2:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest reason is the Great Depression. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s caused a drop in food production which led to food shortages.

The government decided never again, and began subsidizing food production to insure there was always an oversupply. Both of food and of capability to produce food. The uncle's land is part of that reserve production capability, which is why he's paid to keep it farmland but not grow anything on it.

The supply-demand curve for food is not perfectly elastic. There's a certain level below which demand will not drop (at least not until people start dying of starvation). The government decided (wisely IMHO) to take steps to insure supply never drops below that point again. It's produced some unintended side-effects (cheap beef, HFCS, and the stupid corn ethanol lobby which has taken on a life of its own), but on balance I support paying Motoman's uncle not to farm.


RE: Bad Loans
By Motoman on 9/19/2013 3:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
Subsidies don't keep farmers from killing their land. Regulations might...but not subsidies.

I certainly wouldn't say don't regulate any industries...but subsidize? Yeah, no. Farmers near me are getting multimillion-dollar subsidy checks from the government each year.


RE: Bad Loans
By crimsonson on 9/19/2013 5:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong.
Many farmers get paid NOT to use their land or grow certain crops.


RE: Bad Loans
By EricMartello on 9/20/2013 12:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Prior to this practice farmers would do two very bad things -

1) Farm all their land every single year until the land was no longer suitable due to soil depletion


False. Farmers learned early on that the land would need to remain fallow for a season or two before become fertile enough to grow crops. They would rotate sections of their land.

quote:
2) All farmers would farm all available land which in aggregate would collapse the price of the crops being farmed, putting huge swaths of them out of business.


Wrong again. Farmers would farm to meet demand for the area they serve. They would not expend more resources to farm crops they they would not be able to sell at a profit. It's called basic business principle - might want to look into that.

quote:
The Government solution permitted a stable, sustainable long term farming industry that now produces almost as much food as the rest of the world combined. Its a huge American success story, and it could not have happened without regulation and yes, subsidy.


We can tell your a liberal because you're making an idiotic comment suggesting that chaos will ensue in some form or another if the government didn't intervene.

Subsidies were enacted in a time when the price of certain crops - particularly corn - was cheaper than the cost to grow it. Although it may have been fine as a temporary stopgap, it's little more than welfare today and it has a negative overall effect on the economy.

A small percentage of all farmers are receiving a majority of the funds allocated for subsidies. There's also no "means test" to check if a farmer actually needs subsidies or not. In fact, it was not until recently that they checked to see if the farmer is actually farming a particular crop they are being subsidized for - a lot of them said they farm a crop when they didn't and continued to receive money for it.

quote:
That does not mean that all those subsidies make sense today, only that they made absolute sense in the time they were created, and they likely still make sense in some form now.


Nothing is absolute, dipsh1t. Don't talk like you're the authority on anything other than cartoon porn and which brand of tissues is the best. Like any other business, farming should not be bolstered by the taxpayers.

Leaving farmers alone to their own devices would have forced them to find more efficient ways to grow crops. Doling out billions of dollars for farm subsidies - most of it for corn - in this day and age is just one more example of why liberals should be excommunicated from this country and sent back to mother Russia where they'll fit right in.


RE: Bad Loans
By gamerk2 on 9/20/2013 8:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Farmers would farm to meet demand for the area they serve. They would not expend more resources to farm crops they they would not be able to sell at a profit.
quote:


Which infers that there would never be an oversupply.

quote:
Subsidies were enacted in a time when the price of certain crops - particularly corn - was cheaper than the cost to grow it.


Which infers an oversupply, which according to the above can not happen, because farmers are thr masters of the free market and will account for ever market factor that affects the price of their goods.

The point of the subsidies is to keep the cost of goods stable. Nothing more and nothing less. Too much production buts farmers out of business, to little leads to price spikes. Neither is good for the economy.

Or in other words: The net cost of the farm subsidies is less then the long term effect of getting rid of them.


RE: Bad Loans
By Reflex on 9/20/2013 1:16:19 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. Based on what he is saying the Dust Bowl never happened. It did. It happened because of bad farming practices, including what I mentioned.

He's really caught up in insulting a perceived 'liberal' any way he can rather than addressing the topic.

For the record I'm a fiscally right leaning moderate, a socially left leaning moderate. But to the extremes there are no moderates and so to him I will just be a liberal, eh?

There is a time and a place for government. Regulation and subsidies both do have a place. The largest problem I have is the lack of a re-evaluation or expiration point where things can be examined and decided on whether or not they still make sense.


RE: Bad Loans
By EricMartello on 9/21/2013 12:20:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly. Based on what he is saying the Dust Bowl never happened. It did. It happened because of bad farming practices, including what I mentioned.


Do you ever get tired of being wrong? The dust bowl occurred due to several factors, including:

- A severe drought (must have been global warming)

- Farmers using mechanical equipment to farm more land at once.

- Farmers farming a new type of land without understanding the necessity of preserving topsoil and protecting it from the plains winds.

So not "bad farming practices" as if they knew better but did it anyway so much as it was unforeseen consequences coming together with a natural event.

quote:
He's really caught up in insulting a perceived 'liberal' any way he can rather than addressing the topic.


You are right that calling someone a liberal or being branded as such should be considered an insult.

quote:
For the record I'm a fiscally right leaning moderate, a socially left leaning moderate. But to the extremes there are no moderates and so to him I will just be a liberal, eh?


A "moderate" is a codeword for generally pathetic people who can't or won't take a stand and are just looking for the most comfortable bandwagon to hop onto.

They do not know much but they sure believe in a lot of things (although they usually can't explain why they maintain their beliefs). They'll change their views like the weather, not because they gain new insights, rather because they want to feel liked and accepted by their idiot liberal friends who are probably now waiting in line for the new idiotPhone 5...like that's a new thing.

quote:
There is a time and a place for government. Regulation and subsidies both do have a place. The largest problem I have is the lack of a re-evaluation or expiration point where things can be examined and decided on whether or not they still make sense.


If they don't make sense now, they probably didn't make sense before. Welfare never made sense - capitalism slays poverty; welfare promotes it and lets it fester. It doesn't matter if the welfare is being doled out to people, farmers or corporations - it's not the government's job to interfere with the natural evolution of the markets.

Regulations are needed to a LIMITED extent and most of them should be enacted on the state level, not federal. The federal government has too much power and puts out too many laws - thousands per year.

Things need to change and the US Constitution is the document that needs to be renewed. There really needs to be severe penalties for any politician that pushes an unconstitutional agenda, doubly so if they're doing it for their own benefit (i.e. favors from lobbyists).

I'm looking toward re-enacting sections of the constitution that limit federal power and shift the governing power back to states. We do not need DC at all.


RE: Bad Loans
By Reflex on 9/23/2013 12:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
A "moderate" is a codeword for generally pathetic people who can't or won't take a stand and are just looking for the most comfortable bandwagon to hop onto.

No, a moderate is someone who recognizes merit in some liberal and some conservative positions, and realizes that the world is not as simple as proponents of either would like to believe.

In some areas unfettered free markets make sense. In others, regulated free markets make sense. And in still others, government implementation makes sense.

That's reality. I'm sorry it does not conform to your preconceived notions.


RE: Bad Loans
By EricMartello on 9/24/2013 2:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, a moderate is someone who recognizes merit in some liberal and some conservative positions, and realizes that the world is not as simple as proponents of either would like to believe.


America wasn't founded by moderates who sought to participate in "measured" debates with decorum and a fixation on 'political correctness'.

America was founded by people who wanted to be free from the oppressiveness of the left, which in that time was Great Britain.

So if you're not on firmly planted on the right side of the political spectrum AND you find yourself agreeing more often than not that more government intervention in whatever is a "solution", then you are part of the problem.

Just for sh1ts and giggles, please provide me with one example of anything that the left has put forth that has merit.

quote:
In some areas unfettered free markets make sense. In others, regulated free markets make sense. And in still others, government implementation makes sense.

That's reality. I'm sorry it does not conform to your preconceived notions.


Yes, someone who knows nothing about the topic feels the need to talk about it like he is somehow able to understand what "makes sense" and what does not.

When does "government implementation" of anything make sense? What entity run by the government is better than its private sector counterpart?

I notice that only thing you responded to was the allegation that you are a liberal...because you're one of those liberals who thinks calling themselves "moderate" makes their ideas less retarded.

The reality is simple. America is a country built upon conservative principles BECAUSE THEY WORK, and on the occasions where they don't work as expected they allow us to quickly resolve the issues by working together. The left says let the government deal with everything outside of my space - as long as my comfort zone isn't hampered I'm fine being complacent and docile.


RE: Bad Loans
By Reflex on 9/24/2013 3:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
America wasn't founded by moderates who sought to participate in "measured" debates with decorum and a fixation on 'political correctness'.

Um, the founding fathers were the liberals of their time. They proposed a system of government far to the left of the British, and were considered radicals and extremists. Conservative in thier day and age was to submit to royal authority, they countered that with a leftist position of rule by the people with no royalty.

quote:
America was founded by people who wanted to be free from the oppressiveness of the left, which in that time was Great Britain.

Your definition of left and right is a bit out of whack. More than a bit.

quote:
So if you're not on firmly planted on the right side of the political spectrum AND you find yourself agreeing more often than not that more government intervention in whatever is a "solution", then you are part of the problem.

Having an opinion that disagrees with yours is a problem? Odd, I'm pretty certain the founding fathers had conflicting ideals. Madison and Jefferson were political enemies, with very different ideals of how a government should be formed and where the power should be. Franklin was about as liberal as you can possibly imagine, both socially and fiscally, and he imported the concept of insurance to the US. Washington was the moderate of his time, taking aspects of the points of view of the others and crafting a balance.

There was no singular position.

quote:
Just for sh1ts and giggles, please provide me with one example of anything that the left has put forth that has merit.

Social Security. My father has worked nearly every day of his life since he was 12. Unfortunately he has a genetic form of Alzheimer's that strikes very young, and as a result he has slowly been going senile for the past several years. Thanks to Social Security he has been able to stop work as of two years ago and thanks to Medicare he has proper medical care as well. Without those two programs he would be in deep trouble right now. Regardless of your personal opinion of what constitutes 'merit' mine is that those two have done very well for those who need them.

quote:
Yes, someone who knows nothing about the topic feels the need to talk about it like he is somehow able to understand what "makes sense" and what does not.

When does "government implementation" of anything make sense? What entity run by the government is better than its private sector counterpart?

Public transportation. Even when you factor in the public subsidies public transportation in most areas is significantly cheaper than private alternatives. Roads is another one. Pretty much any and all infrastructure. Education. I know some will disagree with that, and in some areas they will be right. But not all, it certainly *can* be done better. Defense. Policing. Public sector medical care and insurance is certainly better in nations that have implemented it than it is in the private system here(ask anyone who has lived in Germany).

quote:
I notice that only thing you responded to was the allegation that you are a liberal...because you're one of those liberals who thinks calling themselves "moderate" makes their ideas less retarded.

Grew up in a household that listened to Rush at dinner. Raised ultra conservative, and lived that way till my mid-20's. Met real people. Saw real problems. Started participating in the political process. Reality is that no singular philosophy solves all issues. Hence I am now a moderate. Reality tends to have that effect.

quote:
The reality is simple. America is a country built upon conservative principles BECAUSE THEY WORK, and on the occasions where they don't work as expected they allow us to quickly resolve the issues by working together. The left says let the government deal with everything outside of my space - as long as my comfort zone isn't hampered I'm fine being complacent and docile.

America is a country built on the idea that the government serves the people, rather than the people serving a king. Nothing more, nothing less. We have the right to demand more, or less, of our government. Neither answer is inherently right or wrong.


RE: Bad Loans
By EricMartello on 9/25/2013 1:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Um, the founding fathers were the liberals of their time. They proposed a system of government far to the left of the British, and were considered radicals and extremists. Conservative in thier day and age was to submit to royal authority, they countered that with a leftist position of rule by the people with no royalty.


Is that what MSNBC told you? LOL

Britain was a monarchy - one person had all the power - that's extreme left and you can't get further left than that, bro. Seems like you don't even know where you stand.

The founders of America were definitely on the right; although not the extreme right (anarchists). Actually, there were people among the colonists who would subscribe to anarchy - which is basically no government at all, but that wasn't the most popular view.

quote:
Your definition of left and right is a bit out of whack. More than a bit.


Not at all. All big government falls on the left. You're obviously not very capable of learning on your own and you seem to be relying on lamestream media portrayals.

Left = dictatorship
Left = Nazi Germany
Left = USSR
Left = China
Left = Most of Europe for most of history

Right = USA circa 1776 up to early 1900s or so
Center-Right = USA around 1940s to 1960s
Center-Left = USA around 1960-1980

The USA has slinked towards the left in recent years and that's a bad thing for everyone.

quote:
Thanks to Social Security he has been able to stop work as of two years ago and thanks to Medicare he has proper medical care as well. Without those two programs he would be in deep trouble right now. Regardless of your personal opinion of what constitutes 'merit' mine is that those two have done very well for those who need them.


You mean to tell me that he needed the government to withhold some money from money from his paycheck so he could get it paid back to him when he retired, as opposed to him putting his own money into a savings account and doing that himself?

Social security is a total farce that needs to go away. In one year it pays out more than most people pay into it their entire working lives. It's a ponzi scheme plain and simple, and instead of relying on SS, learn to do what you should be doing on your own to save for your retirement.

quote:
Franklin was about as liberal as you can possibly imagine, both socially and fiscally, and he imported the concept of insurance to the US. Washington was the moderate of his time, taking aspects of the points of view of the others and crafting a balance.

There was no singular position.


Yes, in a republic where the government is elected by the people for the people, debate is a critical element of its function...but history shows that they all agreed that a big, bloated government with absolute power WAS NOT the way to go. Ergo they all agreed that the ideal government will always be well right of center, because once it crosses that threshold to the left it's no longer a republic.

Franklin was not a liberal any more than water is dry. "A penny saved is a penny earned." Hmm, if he was liberal he would have said "A penny saved is a sign that taxes are too low."

quote:
Public transportation. Even when you factor in the public subsidies public transportation in most areas is significantly cheaper than private alternatives. Roads is another one. Pretty much any and all infrastructure. Education. I know some will disagree with that, and in some areas they will be right.


Sounds like 2012 all over again. Who built those roads? The government or the citizens and pioneers who risked their own skin to move westward and colonize the rest of America.

You do realize that it was individuals, not government, that expanded America into what it is today. Towns and encampments were started by people who wanted to explore and find new opportunities.

It's funny that you believe the propaganda of the left is somehow a suitable basis for making an argument in support of big government.

Furthermore, I told you to show me an example of something the government does better than its private sector counterpart. You've failed to provide any such examples because there are none.

quote:
Grew up in a household that listened to Rush at dinner. Raised ultra conservative, and lived that way till my mid-20's. Met real people. Saw real problems. Started participating in the political process. Reality is that no singular philosophy solves all issues. Hence I am now a moderate. Reality tends to have that effect.


And how does being conservative preclude you from helping people with their problems if you're feeling so benevolent?

It doesn't...unless you're expecting to "solve" problems by expecting to use other peoples' money.

Sorry to say that the people should learn to be responsible for themselves. It's not society's job to pull the weight of losers who can't or won't pull their own weight.

It sounds like you opted for the rubber spine to "fit in" with the gullible douche-bags that inhabit most college campuses. Good job. You're a moderate. Nothing you say matters.

quote:
America is a country built on the idea that the government serves the people, rather than the people serving a king. Nothing more, nothing less. We have the right to demand more, or less, of our government. Neither answer is inherently right or wrong.


You really don't get it. The country is no longer a republic IF IT IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OR IF THE PEOPLE ARE UNWILLING TO HOLD IT ACCOUNTABLE.

If the country ceases to be a republic, it ceases to serve the people and the roles reverse - it serves itself at the expense of the people.

We have BOTH of those problems in America, where half the country consists of people who don't give a fcuk about anything as long as they get their food stamps and welfare check, while the ones who do want to move away from the oppressively huge bureaucracy aren't constantly given the run-around because there is no person to hold accountable.

Take a look at DC. Go there. Tell me why DC is the lap of luxury with a 'booming' economy that ignored the 2008 recession while the rest of the country got shafted?

You can make all the demands you want. It won't change anything. To maintain the freedom and liberty that America was founded upon is going to require action on the part of the people.


RE: Bad Loans
By Reflex on 9/25/2013 4:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is that what MSNBC told you? LOL

Britain was a monarchy - one person had all the power - that''s extreme left and you can''t get further left than that, bro. Seems like you don''t even know where you stand.

The founders of America were definitely on the right; although not the extreme right (anarchists). Actually, there were people among the colonists who would subscribe to anarchy - which is basically no government at all, but that wasn''t the most popular view.

Monarchies are not inherently left nor right. Furthermore, Britain was a parlimentarian system, even in 1776. The king had power, and indeed part of the problem with George the third was his attempts to restore more power to the throne, but what kept him in check was the Parliament.

And no, I do not get my information from MSNBC, but thank you for asking. Do you get yours from WorldNetDaily?

I''m not certain how you feel it was a right wing view, by definition ''conservative'' is an adherence to tradition, and at the time of the Revolution the tradition was monarchy.

quote:
Not at all. All big government falls on the left. You''re obviously not very capable of learning on your own and you seem to be relying on lamestream media portrayals.

Left = dictatorship
Left = Nazi Germany
Left = USSR
Left = China
Left = Most of Europe for most of history

Right = USA circa 1776 up to early 1900s or so
Center-Right = USA around 1940s to 1960s
Center-Left = USA around 1960-1980

The USA has slinked towards the left in recent years and that''s a bad thing for everyone.

Right = Saddam''s Iraq
Right = Putin''s Russia
Right = Iran
Right = Saudi Arabia

Authoritarinism has nothing to do with right or left leaning policies. Furthermore, economic systems are not inherently left or right, you mention the National Socialists(NAZI) but Hitler was extreme right leaning in almost all social and military aspects.

And it is your opinion that a tilt to the left is a bad thing for the USA. I look at rising lifespans, greater economic opportunities, rising wealth and a much higher quality of life and it seems to fly in the face of a claim that the US is declining due to any perceived leftward tilt.


RE: Bad Loans
By Reflex on 9/25/2013 4:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean to tell me that he needed the government to withhold some money from money from his paycheck so he could get it paid back to him when he retired, as opposed to him putting his own money into a savings account and doing that himself?

Yes, he did. He never made enough money in his career to handle the costs of early onset Alzheimer''s. Few people do, it is an extremely expensive disease. After nearly two decades in construction his pension was only $216/month, and while he made ends meet his whole life(and took great pride in the fact that he never lived on welfare or accepted unemployment) the fact is that it was not enough to set up any real retirement, especially not one complicated by a debilitating disease that prevents him from working or even caring properly for himself.

His situation is not unique. Millions end up in a situation like his, through no real fault of their own.

quote:
Social security is a total farce that needs to go away. In one year it pays out more than most people pay into it their entire working lives. It''s a ponzi scheme plain and simple, and instead of relying on SS, learn to do what you should be doing on your own to save for your retirement.

SS does not meat the literal or technical definition of a Ponzi scheme. I know that is a common claim, but it is factually inaccurate. And yes it pays out more, it is designed that way. Current workers pay for retired workers. Its a very smart design that will hit interesting limits should population level off or decline, but even then it is fairly easy to manage. It was a great idea.

quote:
Yes, in a republic where the government is elected by the people for the people, debate is a critical element of its function...but history shows that they all agreed that a big, bloated government with absolute power WAS NOT the way to go. Ergo they all agreed that the ideal government will always be well right of center, because once it crosses that threshold to the left it''s no longer a republic.

Not true, and you can read their debates for more. Not sure what to tell you, but Madison certainly did not believe in small government. Neither did Franklin, for that matter.

quote:
Franklin was not a liberal any more than water is dry. "A penny saved is a penny earned." Hmm, if he was liberal he would have said "A penny saved is a sign that taxes are too low."

Strawmen do not make your point.

quote:
Sounds like 2012 all over again. Who built those roads? The government or the citizens and pioneers who risked their own skin to move westward and colonize the rest of America.

You do realize that it was individuals, not government, that expanded America into what it is today. Towns and encampments were started by people who wanted to explore and find new opportunities.

Government = The People

quote:
It''s funny that you believe the propaganda of the left is somehow a suitable basis for making an argument in support of big government.

I don''t support big government. I support government that is enough to meet the needs of its citizenry. What those needs are is open to debate.

quote:
Furthermore, I told you to show me an example of something the government does better than its private sector counterpart. You''ve failed to provide any such examples because there are none.

No, you chose to disregard the examples I gave. Thats your choice, but you haven''t proven anything yet. I''ll toss on a couple more: The FAA. The FDA.

quote:
And how does being conservative preclude you from helping people with their problems if you''re feeling so benevolent?

It doesn''t...unless you''re expecting to "solve" problems by expecting to use other peoples'' money.

Nobody said being conservative meant you could not help people out. Who said otherwise?

quote:
Sorry to say that the people should learn to be responsible for themselves. It''s not society''s job to pull the weight of losers who can''t or won''t pull their own weight.

Most people are responsible for themselves. Lots of people encounter situations that they could not have prepared for however. Others have empathy for those who are not capable of caring fully for themselves.

quote:
It sounds like you opted for the rubber spine to "fit in" with the gullible douche-bags that inhabit most college campuses. Good job. You''re a moderate. Nothing you say matters.

I never went to college. Also never cared about fitting in. Sorry I do not fit your stereotype. Everything I say matters just as much as everything you say.

quote:
You really don''t get it. The country is no longer a republic IF IT IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OR IF THE PEOPLE ARE UNWILLING TO HOLD IT ACCOUNTABLE.

If the country ceases to be a republic, it ceases to serve the people and the roles reverse - it serves itself at the expense of the people.

We just held elections. The majority voted in favor of the direction we are going. I am sorry you dislike that direction, but it is up to you to make your case to convince people otherwise. This is how democracy works, not everyone gets everything they want.

quote:
We have BOTH of those problems in America, where half the country consists of people who don''t give a fcuk about anything as long as they get their food stamps and welfare check, while the ones who do want to move away from the oppressively huge bureaucracy aren''t constantly given the run-around because there is no person to hold accountable.

Why do you assume that people not agreeing with you means they don''t care? Seems a rather large leap.

quote:
Take a look at DC. Go there. Tell me why DC is the lap of luxury with a ''booming'' economy that ignored the 2008 recession while the rest of the country got shafted?

Was just there in March. Not sure what your talking about. DC is a mess once you leave the central part. Ignoring the center, its probably the second crappiest city I''ve visited after San Antonio.

quote:
You can make all the demands you want. It won''t change anything. To maintain the freedom and liberty that America was founded upon is going to require action on the part of the people.

I''m not making any demands. People are taking action. Just not the actions you want. Again, welcome to democracy.


RE: Bad Loans
By EricMartello on 9/26/2013 1:26:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, he did. He never made enough money in his career to handle the costs of early onset Alzheimer''s. Few people do, it is an extremely expensive disease.


It's not society's job to pay for his treatment - that's your family's job and responsibility. Short of that, turn to charity.

quote:
After nearly two decades in construction his pension was only $216/month, and while he made ends meet his whole life ... especially not one complicated by a debilitating disease that prevents him from working or even caring properly for himself.


See above. You birth it, you own it.

quote:
His situation is not unique. Millions end up in a situation like his, through no real fault of their own.


Every person is going to face some kind of challenge at some point in their life. Looking to the government for help is not the solution; but in your case and many others it's perceived as "the easy way out".

quote:
SS does not meat the literal or technical definition of a Ponzi scheme. I know that is a common claim, but it is factually inaccurate. And yes it pays out more, it is designed that way. Current workers pay for retired workers. Its a very smart design that will hit interesting limits should population level off or decline, but even then it is fairly easy to manage. It was a great idea.


SS was not a "smart design". Instead of giving people tax breaks and encouraging/educating them on how to invest money, they decided to start a national ponzi scheme...the definition of a ponzi scheme being that you are using money from new "investors" to pay existing investors. With SS your new investors are currently employed workers and our existing investors are retirees.

So don't sit there and say "it's not a ponzi scheme" and then stop short of telling us why it's not. It's a dumb idea supported by selfish/stupid/desperate people.

With the introduction of entitlements like SS, poverty shot up and productivity plummeted...and today you have nearly 20% of all Americans receiving some type of handout.

quote:
Not true, and you can read their debates for more. Not sure what to tell you, but Madison certainly did not believe in small government. Neither did Franklin, for that matter.


Franklin did support pragmatic functions to be provided by the government, i.e. a postal service...but to twist that around and claim he or any of the founding fathers were "liberal", as in 'any problem can be solved by expanding government power and authority', is more bullsh1t from the left. They want to "legitimize" themselves because most people realize that being a liberal is effectively being an enemy of the USA.

quote:
Strawmen do not make your point.


The facts, concealed in highly classified documents known as "history books", do.

quote:
I don''t support big government. I support government that is enough to meet the needs of its citizenry. What those needs are is open to debate.


The government is not there to "meet the needs of its citizens" and by saying that you are affirming your support for big government. The government is there to moderate - its role in our lives should be no different than referees at a football game. The referees enforce the rules of the game, but they do not change the rules or interfere with the game itself. They exist within a very limited and well-defined scope - we do not have this with our government today.

quote:
No, you chose to disregard the examples I gave. Thats your choice, but you haven''t proven anything yet. I''ll toss on a couple more: The FAA. The FDA.


Both socialist institutions that do not have a private sector counterpart.

The best example would be Fedex (or UPS or DHL) vs the USPS. Who wins? Well, any of the private sector shipping companies provide superior service, faster transit times, real-time tracking as well as a variety of expedited services. They do not get any tax dollars for operational costs.

The USPS limps along burdened by the weight of pensions it cannot afford and employees who are generally overcompensated for the work they perform. It wants to raise first class postage to 49 cents; meanwhile UPS, Fedex and DHL are in the black.

Neither the FAA nor the FDA have a private sector counterpart and neither of them are doing an exemplary job since they really have no accountability and nobody to answer to.

quote:
Most people are responsible for themselves. Lots of people encounter situations that they could not have prepared for however. Others have empathy for those who are not capable of caring fully for themselves.


Have all the empathy you want - but not at my expense. You want to help someone, GO DO IT YOURSELF WITH YOUR OWN TIME AND YOUR OWN MONEY, otherwise STFU.

quote:
I never went to college. Also never cared about fitting in. Sorry I do not fit your stereotype. Everything I say matters just as much as everything you say.


If you said you went to college you could at least blame being an ignorant douche on some nutty left-wing professor who claims to be open minded, yet only accepts views that mesh with his own.

Nothing you say matters because you are either making sh1t up entirely or taking wishy-washy stances while displaying a total ignorance on the topics you're talking about.

quote:
Was just there in March. Not sure what your talking about. DC is a mess once you leave the central part. Ignoring the center, its probably the second crappiest city I''ve visited after San Antonio.


I don't think anyone who actually visited DC will agree with you, but like every city it has its ghetto. The fact is that most of the people living in DC are raking in six-figure salaries, driving luxury cars, living in what most people would consider mansions and they are the "middle class".

The crappiest city in America is Detroit, because it was "saved" by liberals. lol

quote:
We just held elections. The majority voted in favor of the direction we are going. I am sorry you dislike that direction, but it is up to you to make your case to convince people otherwise. This is how democracy works, not everyone gets everything they want.


No, not really. If asked I'd say most people voted for Obama since Romney spent most of his time talking about what he was against and didn't really establish what he was for. He also left too many attacks from Obama unchecked and unanswered.

Obama has had two accomplishments in his lifetime - being elected once, and then being re-elected. Everything else he's been involved with could be summed up with the sentence, "The diversity of failure."

The USA is NOT a democracy; THE USA IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC .

If you understood US history you'd also understand why many people gave their lives to establish the USA as a republic and not a democracy...but you barely understand how to operate a toothpick.

quote:
Why do you assume that people not agreeing with you means they don''t care? Seems a rather large leap.


Why do you assume I'm making assumptions? I'm making statements of fact. You being oblivious to these facts does not make anything I said assumptive.

quote:
I''m not making any demands. People are taking action. Just not the actions you want. Again, welcome to democracy.


Asking for or demanding more handouts is not "taking action". That's called expanding dependency.

There are people taking action because more than half of the country is quite fed up with what's going on here.

Welcome to the Republic.


RE: Bad Loans
By EricMartello on 9/26/2013 12:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Monarchies are not inherently left nor right. Furthermore, Britain was a parlimentarian system, even in 1776. The king had power, and indeed part of the problem with George the third was his attempts to restore more power to the throne, but what kept him in check was the Parliament.


You've basically just stated that you do not understand why the revolutionary war was fought, or why Britain's rule was tyranny.

The fundamental tenet that defines a left wing government from a right wing government is who the government serves and how government officials are appointed.

Monarchies (along with dictatorships) are without a doubt far left wing. Only "nobles" are eligible to serve within governmental positions, and only descendants of the king or queen are eligible to rule. There are no elections, ever...and if there are, they're usually ripe with fraud.

Rome had an emperor; the existence of the roman senate did not "keep rome's emperor in check". It gives people the illusion that they have some say over what's going on in their country when in reality, the final say is up to ONE person or a very small group of people.

quote:
I''m not certain how you feel it was a right wing view, by definition ''conservative'' is an adherence to tradition, and at the time of the Revolution the tradition was monarchy.


Conservative politics imply minimal deviation from what was laid out in the original constitution and limited application of government. Conservative philosophies, favoring tradition, are a separate thing.

There used to be such things as conservative democrats, and some still exist today as in Colorado with the recall of two politicians that pushed forth unconstitutional laws against the 2nd Amendment.

quote:
Right = Saddam''s Iraq
Right = Putin''s Russia
Right = Iran
Right = Saudi Arabia


None of these are even remotely right-leaning...wow... /facepalm

What you listed above are either dictatorships, oligarchies or theocracies - all manifestations of left wing. Left wing governments seek absolute control and power over its people.

Right wing governments are limited in scope and power.

MOST GOVERNMENTS IN THE WORLD ARE LEFT WING - THAT IS WHY THE USA IS SUCH A GREAT AND UNIQUE COUNTRY.

quote:
Authoritarinism has nothing to do with right or left leaning policies. Furthermore, economic systems are not inherently left or right, you mention the National Socialists(NAZI) but Hitler was extreme right leaning in almost all social and military aspects.


Here we go again with the MSNBC portrayal of what "right wing" means. Sorry dipsh1t, but the Nazi regime, which was elected into power during a time when Germany's people were suffering economic strife and were receptive to the kool-aid, was a dictatorship.

Once elected, Hitler promptly killed anyone who didn't acknowledge him as the sole leader of his regime. Hitler was probably the most famous "progressive" to date. Progressives believe they have all the answers, and that they have some divine edict to "save" the rest of us from ourselves. They strive to fit everyone into their idea of how things should be - EXACTLY what Hitler did once he came to power.

Let's review...right wing governments are:

- Limited in size and scope.
- Tend to exist as republics, to serve the people.
- Derive their authority from the people; i.e. not controlled by military doctrine.
- Typically have a constitution document that declares the rights of its people and the powers granted by the people to the government.
- Have democratically elected officials.
- Have term limits for key offices (something that was removed from the US constitution and needs to be re-inserted).

So...yeah...your assertion that Hitler's Germany was "right wing" or that nazi SOCIALISTS are right wing underlines your sheer stupidity.

quote:
And it is your opinion that a tilt to the left is a bad thing for the USA. I look at rising lifespans, greater economic opportunities, rising wealth and a much higher quality of life and it seems to fly in the face of a claim that the US is declining due to any perceived leftward tilt.


None of these things exist because of anything the left did, moron. America's greatest recent era of prosperity took off after Reagan reversed a decade of liberal left-wing failures in the 80s and nearly half a century of democrat-controlled house and senate.

Bush Sr. managed to keep Reagan's momentum going, but fizzled out toward the end when he decided to cave to democratic demands rather than standing for his own beliefs.

Clinton, a centrist, spent the first few years of office trying to push a program similar to obamacare but it flunked out bad. His efforts resulted in a backlash that enabled republicans to gain control of the house. Clinton, being a better president than Obama, was able to work out a deal with republicans to accept spending cuts and did some work to reform welfare. However, in 1995, Clinton signed the glass-steagall act into play which planted the seed for the economic meltdown of 2008.

Furthermore, many of Clinton's presidency, which benefited from the things put in place by reagan and bush sr, was falling apart near the end of his second term as he was facing impeachment.

Better for you does not equal better for America - but that's what liberals just don't seem to get. It's NOT about YOU and what YOU want.

With your head so far up your a55 it's no surprise that you don't perceive any decline. You also don't seem to realize how much better things could be now with the proper leadership in place right now...and the proper leadership for a country is NEVER from left wing.


RE: Bad Loans
By Reflex on 9/26/2013 1:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
Given that you cannot reply without constant insults, and you seem to believe you have a right to your own facts rather than only a right to your own opinion, I am not going to bother to respond to this mess. I will respond to one thing though:

quote:
It's not society's job to pay for his treatment - that's your family's job and responsibility. Short of that, turn to charity.

No.

Period. And anyone who tries to change this I will oppose. This is basic human decency. This kind of thinking is a war against the people who built this country. My father worked in construction his whole life because he wanted to be one of those people you talk about as making America great. Unfortunately that kind of work has a great toll, especially physically. Combined with unlucky genetics, he is in a situation that would cost me more than a hundred grand a year. That burden is too great for me, even at my income level, and it is certainly nothing he could have ever prepared for.

Society can afford to take care of situations like this. Otherwise there is no point to a society at all.

Believe whatever you choose to believe, but advocating this point of view will not only lose you credibility, it will lose you votes. Most of the people who agree with much of what you said are also in need of the programs you oppose. Like it or not, this is a decision we as a society made 80 years ago, and it is one that has worked out well for the vast majority of people. It works, it works well, and it is inexpensive.

I would say that I am sorry that the country is not going in the direction you would prefer, but I'm really not. The nation you would like would cripple me financially and penalize people like my father who built the things you get to enjoy every day.

Such entitlement is astonishing, but I guess its to be expected on both extremes of the political spectrum.


RE: Bad Loans
By EricMartello on 9/26/2013 11:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Given that you cannot reply without constant insults, and you seem to believe you have a right to your own facts rather than only a right to your own opinion, I am not going to bother to respond to this mess.


Everything I stated is fact, and as such is independently verifiable. Me stating facts that you disagree with does not magically convert my statements into "opinion"...and I didn't insult you, again, a simple statement of fact. You're obviously not that smart but maybe you're pretty. Work with what you got.

quote:
No.

Period. And anyone who tries to change this I will oppose. This is basic human decency. This kind of thinking is a war against the people who built this country. My father worked in construction his whole life because he wanted to be one of those people you talk about as making America great. Unfortunately that kind of work has a great toll, especially physically. Combined with unlucky genetics, he is in a situation that would cost me more than a hundred grand a year. That burden is too great for me, even at my income level, and it is certainly nothing he could have ever prepared for.


I like how you think that merely working hard, and doing so for a living - not out of charity, somehow qualifies him for taxpayer-funded handouts. It doesn't, and you're not making a logical case. You're making a dumb-witted emotional plea.

You've obviously wrapped yourself in a thick layer of bogus justifications and you've also failed to state why your own family is unable to take care of themselves. You claimed that you were 'raised conservative' implying that your family was conservative - if they were, they'd be contributing to the care of your grandfather.

It really seems like you lied about that too, just like you're trying to hide the fact that you're a dumba55 liberal parasite by claiming to be a "moderate".

Like I said, your family members' health issues are YOUR problem not mine - you making it mine because of you trying to impose your idea of "decency" at my expense is what makes you an enemy of the state.

What you fail to grasp is that if you supported local community groups, church, charities rather than having the government steal more money from peoples' paychecks only to hand it over to you, then you would likely have been able to get the support you need from people around you that know you.

quote:
Society can afford to take care of situations like this. Otherwise there is no point to a society at all.


No point to society if it's not giving losers handouts?

What an asinine statement. Pure stupidity condensed into a short string of words...

In America, society was intended to provide a general structure that offered all citizens equal opportunity - something that still exists today despite being steadily eroded by selfish liberals like you.

Your idea that society only exists to give the failures "free stuff" by taking it from the people who are motivated to succeed is about as anti-American as anyone can get.

Why are you still in this country? Just leave and go back to Europe where your way of thinking is generally accepted.

quote:
I would say that I am sorry that the country is not going in the direction you would prefer, but I'm really not. The nation you would like would cripple me financially and penalize people like my father who built the things you get to enjoy every day.


Your contrived anecdotal tale, which is was overused during the 2012 campaign, is a load of crap that you're hoping makes your point for you. It doesn't because it's devoid of logic.

First of all there are many people who participate in the construction industry and do so as small business owners or independent contractors. They did not do so because of a government mandate - they did it to pursue one of the many opportunities available to Americans.

A lot of these people were and are making a respectable living with construction work, but apparently the stupid gene that you carry now was present with your grandpa since he wasn't able to move up from the ranks of "rookie" in the world of construction.

You're also overstating your imaginary grandpa's contribution to society. He did his job like millions of other people used to do (before the obamaconomy) - his existence or lack thereof would not have had any appreciable impact on the development of the USA. Now you have millions collecting food stamps, disability and welfare checks - I guess that's the "new" jobs he promised.

Your personal financial solvency is again your problem - not society's responsibility. There are state-run institutions that could offer care for people who cannot afford it. Short of that, ask yourself, what's the point of keeping someone around who can't remember anything? Let nature run its course and do the world a favor and don't reproduce and spread your fail genes.

The notion that just because someone is wealthy, that they should be obligated to prop up people who don't is inherently flawed. People need options to move up and those who do should be rewarded. Those like you, who give up when faced with a challenge, should be penalized and should be allowed to fade into oblivion. The FEWER people like you that exist in society, the better society is.


RE: Bad Loans
By EricMartello on 9/21/2013 12:04:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

quote:
Farmers would farm to meet demand for the area they serve. They would not expend more resources to farm crops they they would not be able to sell at a profit.


Which infers that there would never be an oversupply.


Not if the area they serve is expanded to include demand from some or most of the country, which was coming off the "roaring 20s" stock market bubble.

quote:
quote:
Subsidies were enacted in a time when the price of certain crops - particularly corn - was cheaper than the cost to grow it.


Which infers an oversupply, which according to the above can not happen, because farmers are thr masters of the free market and will account for ever market factor that affects the price of their goods.


Being a good farmer does not automatically make you a good businessman. When you know what you're talking about you won't need to hope that suggested 'inferences' actually exist. In your case, they don't.

quote:
The point of the subsidies is to keep the cost of goods stable. Nothing more and nothing less. Too much production buts farmers out of business, to little leads to price spikes. Neither is good for the economy.

Or in other words: The net cost of the farm subsidies is less then the long term effect of getting rid of them.


Many goods are produced without subsidies and are not subject to wild price swings. Subsidies were introduced at a time when poverty was sweeping the nation due to the great depression - people were too poor to buy farm goods, among other things, and it could be thought of as the "too big too fail" bullsh1t of its era...as if people would not resume farming when the economic downturn recovered.

Sorry but there really is no good reason for the government to step in and redistribute wealth on its whims. Subsidies were a "maybe" in their time. They are a "hell no" today and have been for more than half a century.


RE: Bad Loans
By half_duplex on 9/19/2013 12:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
And your point is?


RE: Bad Loans
By Reclaimer77 on 9/19/2013 2:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
Now Brandon, two wrongs don't make a right.

/your mother


RE: Bad Loans
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/19/2013 2:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry, "when" my TDI breaks down, I'm calling you to pick me up! ;)

/your grandma


RE: Bad Loans
By Spuke on 9/19/2013 2:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO @ you two!!!!


RE: Bad Loans
By danjw1 on 9/19/2013 1:42:44 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is that some technologies are too high risk for companies to want to support. The DOE loan program has a better success rate then most hedge funds.

I agree some of the loans were ill conceived, Fisk particularly. But, investment in deep research and risky, but high payoff, technology is required to drive our economy.


RE: Bad Loans
By Jeffk464 on 9/19/2013 12:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
With the price of gas there is really very little need to have government incentives for low mileage vehicles. People are basically moving to higher mileage vehicles on the their own.


RE: Bad Loans
By Jeffk464 on 9/19/2013 1:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
eh, high mileage vehicles


RE: Bad Loans
By Jeffk464 on 9/19/2013 12:22:12 PM , Rating: 3
Testla is the success story here though. It looks like its going to become a pretty big player in the global market and provide lots of US jobs.


RE: Bad Loans
By TSS on 9/19/2013 2:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/pe-ratio

Then exlain that to me. Also, why is their market cap as large as Fiat with what? 20,000 cars sold each year?

Or why they've never even turned a profit yet according to GAAP accounting.

As much as i like Elon Musks efforts, Tesla's by far not a succes story yet. Maybe in 10 years, if they manage to survive (read: not implode), if they manage to actually bring out that affordable electric car they said they would, and most importantly, if the autosales market holds together,

http://jalopnik.com/the-97-month-car-loan-is-the-c...

and the stock market holds together,

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/fed-owns-...

No taper mr. Bernake? If he doesn't the fed will own the entire bond market by 2018, game over. If he does, the stock market, and tesla with it, will take a nosedive.

Once again, don't get me wrong, i really hope Tesla makes it and in a decade we're all driving Tesla made sub-$20,000 electric cars. Aside from the who owns what battery problems i was really impressed by their battery swapping demonstration on the model S.

But to call them a succes story, or to even suggest they're in the clear... Is far too premature at best, blatant propaganda at worst.


RE: Bad Loans
By gamerk2 on 9/20/2013 8:34:16 AM , Rating: 2
Neither had Tesla. That's what happens when you fund startups: Some succeed, others fail.

The point was less to turn a profit on the loans, but more to adjust the markets to entice manufacturers (specifically GM and Ford) to start making more efficient vehicles.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














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