EVs in the 2012 Presidential Debates

[vfx]

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor, the people in Detroit don’t forget.
MR. ROMNEY: And — and that’s I have the kind of commitment to make sure that our industries in this country can compete and be successful. We in this country can compete successfully with anyone in the world. And we’re going to. We’re going to have to have a president, however, that doesn’t think that somehow the government investing in — in car companies like Tesla and — and Fisker, making electric battery cars — this is not research, Mr. President. These are the government investing in companies, investing in Solyndra. This is a company. This isn’t basic research. I — I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks — great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not. That’s the wrong way to go.

[a bit later]

PRESIDENT OBAMA: But more importantly, it is true that in order for us to be competitive, we’re going to have to make some smart choices right now. Cutting our education budget — that’s not a smart choice. That will not help us compete with China. Cutting our investments in research and technology — that’s not a smart choice. That will not help us compete with China. Bringing down (sic) our deficit by adding $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending that our military’s not asking for before we even get to the debt that we currently have — that is not going to make us more competitive. Those are the kinds of choices that the American people face right now. Having a tax code that rewards companies that are shipping jobs overseas instead of companies that are investing here in the United States — that will not make us more competitive.









http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/transcript-of-the-third-presidential-debate-in-boca-raton-fla.html?_r=0

 

[Arnold Panz]

MR. ROMNEY: And — and that’s I have the kind of commitment to make sure that our industries in this country can compete and be successful. We in this country can compete successfully with anyone in the world. And we’re going to. We’re going to have to have a president, however, that doesn’t think that somehow the government investing in — in car companies like Tesla and — and Fisker, making electric battery cars — this is not research, Mr. President. These are the government investing in companies, investing in Solyndra. This is a company. This isn’t basic research. I — I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks — great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not. That’s the wrong way to go.

[a bit later]

PRESIDENT OBAMA: But more importantly, it is true that in order for us to be competitive, we’re going to have to make some smart choices right now. Cutting our education budget — that’s not a smart choice. That will not help us compete with China. Cutting our investments in research and technology — that’s not a smart choice. That will not help us compete with China. Bringing down (sic) our deficit by adding $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending that our military’s not asking for before we even get to the debt that we currently have — that is not going to make us more competitive. Those are the kinds of choices that the American people face right now. Having a tax code that rewards companies that are shipping jobs overseas instead of companies that are investing here in the United States — that will not make us more competitive.

What these guys are arguing about is Paul Ryan's budget proposal. In order to "balance the budget" (actually, to not further explode the debt), virtually all discretionary spending will have to be massively slashed in order to pay for the tax cuts in the Romney/Ryan plan. There won't be money for research, education or universities if that budget becomes the law. Obama didn't quite make the connection on this, though Romney's obfuscation is really egregious here because doesn't the government select companies to support right now? Like, say, the big oil and gas companies?

My hope is that if Romney wins, this will just be rhetoric intended to hurt Obama and he'll support Tesla's loan, and EVs in general, once he's in office.

 

[bonnie]

I was kind of hoping to hear him say, 'Well Arnold Panz of Miami ...".

 

[v12 to 12v]

I was kind of hoping to hear him say, 'Well Arnold Panz of Miami ...".

Yeah, don't they know about the Sig tax?

 

[elecblue]

What is Romney's problem with Tesla? This is the second time he mentions the company as if it is the worst company ever to exist. C'mon Elon, speak up and let people know the real story. That this Romney dude is full of it....

Yes - After mentioning Tesla by name twice in the debates in a negative light, I would like to see Elon speak up publicly about this. Elon does not take anything lying down and I would not expect him to do so with this one either.

 

[Arnold Panz]

I was kind of hoping to hear him say, 'Well Arnold Panz of Miami ...".

LOL!! :biggrin::smile:

- - - Updated - - -

Yes - After mentioning Tesla by name twice in the debates in a negative light, I would like to see Elon speak up publicly about this. Elon does not take anything lying down and I would not expect him to do so with this one either.

No chance -- I think we covered this earlier in the thread, but Elon wants to sell to Dems and Reps, liberals and conservatives, and doesn't want to be seen as taking sides with anyone on such a volatile, sensitive topic as presidential politics. I'm sure we can all guess how he feels about these shout-outs from Mitt during the debates, but my guess is he keeps his mouth shut, even after the election.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, don't they know about the Sig tax?

Actually, the price of the car (even the 40kWh base car) is probably what prevents Obama from defending/promoting Tesla's success more. It's not exactly a car for the masses. That's Gen III, and it will be a few years before they can tout that car.

 

[Grendal]

Yes - After mentioning Tesla by name twice in the debates in a negative light, I would like to see Elon speak up publicly about this. Elon does not take anything lying down and I would not expect him to do so with this one either.

The best way to combat this is to succeed as a business. Succeed and pay back the loan and continue to build the best electric car in the world. Obama is currently ahead in the polls. It's still possible Romney will win and since the loan has already been given out and used it should make little difference to Tesla as far as that is concerned. The only area that can create future problems is by rescinding the EV tax credit.

I'm still upset that Obama didn't call Romney out for his Fisker and Tesla comment. Since this came up in the first debate he should have been prepared for it this time around. His response indicated that he wasn't prepared. The simplest response would be to point out that the loan program was created by Bush to promote American industry. It's a program designed to help get us off foreign oil. Romney is clearly promoting oil and gas interests and so that is why he called out Tesla and Fisker in a negative light.

 

[PopSmith]

It really upsets me that Romney piles Tesla in with companies that have failed or are doing poorly *ahem* Fisker *ahem*. Tesla may not be doing financially well (yet) but they are definitely on their way. (Sorry, I know this is more "preaching to the choir" than anything.)

And while Tesla isn't research per se, they are an innovative company and they are pushing the envelope for (further) research, not to mention a world-class car company improves America's competitiveness.

My hope is that if Romney wins, this will just be rhetoric intended to hurt Obama and he'll support Tesla's loan, and EVs in general, once he's in office.

Based on Romney's push for oil and gas exploration it seems like his pockets are being lined by Big Oil. It could be rhetoric but I haven't seen anything to the contrary, yet. The other thing that bugs me is how Romney mentions "solar" on his list of technology he'd use but then bashes the funding of clean-technology start-ups. Yes, a small portion of them failed but he does a great job at sounding like he doesn't support Wind, Solar or EVs at all.

 

[Robert.Boston]

If Romney had also said, "I want to cut government support for all private companies. Let me reiterate that I would never have put a dime of federal money into any car manufacturer during the recession. Furthermore, let's end the massive subsidies to oil and coal companies by closing billion-dollar loopholes in the tax code. Let's end the "cost-plus" defense contracts and really hold those defense contractors accountable for cost controls. Let's end the loopholes that allow my colleagues at Bain Capital and other venture capital funds to pay low taxes on extraordinary incomes. Getting rid of all these loopholes, I can cut taxes for everyone."

Now, if I had heard those things, then I might have been less bothered if Romney had then gone on to say that Tesla shouldn't have gotten a federally backed loan. But, unsurprisingly, Romney was picking on the easy targets, instead of the substantive ones.

 

[bonnie]

Like that, stole that, Robert.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

There He Goes Again: Romney's Tesla Gaffe - Forbes

 

[vfx]

http://www.greencarreports.com/news...sla-fisker-again-in-final-presidential-debate

 

[JRP3]

It's obvious, Romney is shorting TSLA.

 

[Arnold Panz]

It's obvious, Romney is shorting TSLA.

LOL!! :tongue::biggrin: Mystery solved -- Romney will do anything to help his investments!

 

[v12 to 12v]

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor, the people in Detroit don’t forget.
MR. ROMNEY: And — and that’s I have the kind of commitment to make sure that our industries in this country can compete and be successful. We in this country can compete successfully with anyone in the world. And we’re going to. We’re going to have to have a president, however, that doesn’t think that somehow the government investing in — in car companies like Tesla and — and Fisker, making electric battery cars — this is not research, Mr. President. These are the government investing in companies, investing in Solyndra. This is a company. This isn’t basic research. I — I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks — great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not. That’s the wrong way to go.

[a bit later]

PRESIDENT OBAMA: But more importantly, it is true that in order for us to be competitive, we’re going to have to make some smart choices right now. Cutting our education budget — that’s not a smart choice. That will not help us compete with China. Cutting our investments in research and technology — that’s not a smart choice. That will not help us compete with China. Bringing down (sic) our deficit by adding $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending that our military’s not asking for before we even get to the debt that we currently have — that is not going to make us more competitive. Those are the kinds of choices that the American people face right now. Having a tax code that rewards companies that are shipping jobs overseas instead of companies that are investing here in the United States — that will not make us more competitive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/us/politics/transcript-of-the-third-presidential-debate-in-boca-raton-fla.html?_r=0

It's the part in between "a bit later" that bugged me.

"ROMNEY: And that we do those things that make America the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, innovators, businesses to grow. But you're investing in companies doesn't do that. In fact it makes it less likely for them to come here..."

It makes WHO less likely to come here? I'd rather see businesses grown at home instead of being brought in.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually the "think tank" bit bugged me too. Most of the time they are just re-branded special interest groups.

 

[Grendal]

More on this from ABG:

Romney again attacks Tesla, Fisker in presidential debate with Obama

 

[rolosrevenge]

He has a point about only investing in research and not companies. I'm not sure I fully agree with it though. He should leave Tesla off the list. Fisker is still good to be on the list, since they failed to meet conditions of the loan, but Tesla is still on track for repayment with interest so it is more of a reason why you should invest in companies than not.

 

[vfx]

Some of the various comments:

Chris OPosted: 10/23/2012 2:14pm UTC

The title is somewhat misleading: Romney didn't actually slam Tesla or Fisker, just the general principle of what he wrongly calls government "investment" in such companies.

Which is ironic by the way: the Advanced Technologies Vehicle Manufacturing Program the EPA loans are based on was initiated by the Bush administration and not a penny from it has been awarded during the Obama administration.

The idea that research grants are the way to go has long since been debunked. Companies need an incentive to actually bring something to the market or more often than not they will just pocket the cash and the patents and everything will stay the same. Loans and buyer subsidies are the way to go for those who really want change.

Post Reply
+2
Bad stuff?

Marty PadgettPosted: 10/23/2012 2:58pm UTC

Chris, your timeline is a bit off. Both Tesla and Fisker received DoE loan approvals after the President took office.

Post Reply
Vote
Bad stuff?

Chris OPosted: 10/23/2012 3:40pm UTC

Correct, while the $25 billion program was initiated by the Bush government the actual approval of the less than $9 billion that was ever granted (most of it to Ford) happened in the first 18 months of the Obama administration. None was awarded since.


MTN RANGER

Back in 2009, the DOE lent out $8B for electric vehicles and battery manufacturers. Of that, $5.9B went to Ford. $1.6B went to Nissan. $.46B went to Tesla.

Where is the vitriol and outrage for Ford. Where did that $5.9B go? Tesla has built more Model Ss than Ford made Focus EVs

 

[artsci]

Mod merge w EVs in the 2012 Presidential Debates

Rolling Stone reports on last night's debate:

"Romney tried to defend the indefensible, smiling like a serial killer and insisting, "I would do nothing to hurt the U.S. auto industry" — before slashing wildly at the most innovative car company on the planet, Tesla motors, painting it as the automotive equivalent of Solyndra."

Mitt Romney, you may be a "son of Detroit," but if the Model S doesn't move you, governor, you're no car guy.

This comment has a link to the Model S pages of the Tesla web site.

Read more: The Final Presidential Debate: Four Punches That Knocked Out Mitt Romney | Tim Dickinson | Politics News | Rolling Stone

 

[Grendal]

He has a point about only investing in research and not companies. I'm not sure I fully agree with it though. He should leave Tesla off the list. Fisker is still good to be on the list, since they failed to meet conditions of the loan, but Tesla is still on track for repayment with interest so it is more of a reason why you should invest in companies than not.

Has Fisker said they aren't going to pay back their loan? They haven't. So they should not be on any "failed" list until that happens.

The ATVM loans have done exactly what they were supposed to do in both Tesla and Fisker case. They were created by President Bush to promote advanced technology, American interests and business. They should not be touted by the GOP as reckless spending when there are lots of other areas that should be pointed out.

How is spending an extra $1 trillion on the military not promoting American business interests? It's the same thing. Except it's not promoting "new" business.