EVs in the 2012 Presidential Debates

[Grendal]

Here is the Daily Shows episode that pertains to Tesla and comments on the "loser" statement:

October 25, 2012 - Nancy Pelosi - The Daily Show With Jon Stewart - Full Episode Video | Comedy Central

 

[Arnold Panz]

Throwing Tesla in with Solyndra the first time may have been an oversight. There are enough people in a campaign that surely heard the minor blow-back about lumping Tesla in with them but they don't care it seems.

Right. You'd think if he's going to use two companies he'd use Solyndra and Fisker or A123. Maybe Tesla has better name recognition? It's also in California, not Delaware or Michigan, so who cares if people there get annoyed. Also, didn't Romney do a speech outside Solyndra once during the primaries? It's possible he conflagrated the two in his his kind because he saw them together. I couldn't believe how close they were to each other when I was out there last year.

 

[bonnie]

It's possible he conflagrated the two in his his kind because he saw them together. I couldn't believe how close they were to each other when I was out there last year.

If he can't keep such simple facts straight, then he has no business running for .... oh never mind.

 

[gg_got_a_tesla]

Romney's appealing to auto workers in Ohio who may feel threatened by Tesla!! He's also getting campaign contributions from NADA! j/k

 

[v12 to 12v]

Romney's appealing to auto workers in Ohio who may feel threatened by Tesla!! He's also getting campaign contributions from NADA! j/k

Yes Bonnie. The Tesla/Fisker comment was in direct response to President Obamas mention of saving the auto industry. Tesla was the sacraficial lamb for Ohio votes.

NADA is interesting. What about letting the markets decide?

 

[nustada]

Both candidates are cancer for this country, both are bought and paid for by organizations working against the interest of the general public. I think all, or at least, most government grants should be eliminated. Guaranteeing loans should be used as a legitimate source of income. As long as the requirements for such loans, or loan insurance, are completely equitable. The government should not be in the business of picking winners. If government funding is needed to establish a technology, then it should be able to make money issuing licenses of that technology as a source of income, in line with normal patent and copy-write laws. In whatever way government involvement in development is done, it should not be an ongoing burden on the taxpayer.

 

[dsm363]

Right. You'd think if he's going to use two companies he'd use Solyndra and Fisker or A123. Maybe Tesla has better name recognition? It's also in California, not Delaware or Michigan, so who cares if people there get annoyed. Also, didn't Romney do a speech outside Solyndra once during the primaries? It's possible he conflagrated the two in his his kind because he saw them together. I couldn't believe how close they were to each other when I was out there last year.

Looks like he did
Mitt Romney Visits Solyndra Amid Attack on Obama Jobs Record - ABC News

but he knew exactly what he was doing there. This was after it had closed down so he was highlighting that fact.

 

[Grendal]

Both candidates are cancer for this country, both are bought and paid for by organizations working against the interest of the general public. I think all, or at least, most government grants should be eliminated. Guaranteeing loans should be used as a legitimate source of income. As long as the requirements for such loans, or loan insurance, are completely equitable. The government should not be in the business of picking winners. If government funding is needed to establish a technology, then it should be able to make money issuing licenses of that technology as a source of income, in line with normal patent and copy-write laws. In whatever way government involvement in development is done, it should not be an ongoing burden on the taxpayer.

You need to watch the Daily Show on the link. It covers the picking winners and losers argument very well. The government, right and left, picks winners and losers every day. Romney is creating the argument just to point a finger and get people riled up. It's a hollow argument and the The Daily Show deconstructs it nicely while pointing out its fallacies.

 

[jerry33]

It appears a politician's job these days is to get elected the next term. That means, if they are in the minority, they spend the current term obstructing and doing their best to discredit the other party. The only way to solve this is to limit politicians to one term only.

 

[v12 to 12v]

You need to watch the Daily Show on the link. It covers the picking winners and losers argument very well. The government, right and left, picks winners and losers every day. Romney is creating the argument just to point a finger and get people riled up. It's a hollow argument and the The Daily Show deconstructs it nicely while pointing out its fallacies.

Here it is: October 25, 2012 - Nancy Pelosi - The Daily Show With Jon Stewart - Full Episode Video | Comedy Central

 

[nustada]

You need to watch the Daily Show on the link. It covers the picking winners and losers argument very well. The government, right and left, picks winners and losers every day. Romney is creating the argument just to point a finger and get people riled up. It's a hollow argument and the The Daily Show deconstructs it nicely while pointing out its fallacies.

Just because the parties are hypocritical does not mean the argument itself is fallacious.

As far as the daily show is concerned, Stewart is somewhat off base in a few aspects. Venture capital firms do not (or should not) gamble with tax dollars, they generally choose high risk for high reward, so the comparison doesn't work. Outsourced infrastructure construction jobs are granted through a bidding process so it is somewhat equitable. However, funds for those roads came from initiation of violence, thus is immoral, and in turn so is anyone who supports using tax for that purpose.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Let's try to hew a little closer to the "EVs in the Presidential Debates" / Campaign, please. Words like "immoral" are very strong.

Thanks,

 

[Grendal]

Just because the parties are hypocritical does not mean the argument itself is fallacious.

As far as the daily show is concerned, Stewart is somewhat off base in a few aspects. Venture capital firms do not (or should not) gamble with tax dollars, they generally choose high risk for high reward, so the comparison doesn't work. Outsourced infrastructure construction jobs are granted through a bidding process so it is somewhat equitable. However, funds for those roads came from initiation of violence, thus is immoral, and in turn so is anyone who supports using tax for that purpose.

I am somewhat confused by your argument so I will respond to the debate and Romney's characterizing the loan given to Tesla as a bad thing for the government to do. And that giving out the loan is the government choosing "winners and losers."

The first point is the loan itself. The ATVM program was created by the Bush administration and you can get the details of it from here: Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was a program designed to promote American interests and advance American technology when it comes to vehicles. $25 billion was allocated for it. Govenor Romney is wrong to lump Tesla and Solyndra together simply because they are completely different programs. President Obama is also incorrectly being branded as the initiator of the loan that Tesla received. His administration specifically approved Tesla's loan but that loan was going to given out to someone and Tesla passed the qualifications. If anything, the Obama administration should be given credit for only giving out $8 billion out of $25 billion allocated. Obama actually saved the taxpayer $17 billion. His administration also cut off Fisker at $178 million and again receives no credit for that either.

The second point is the picking of "winners and losers." The Bush administration created the ATVM program to promote American interests. The government also promotes it's interests in every transaction it makes (military contracts, NASA, construction contracts, etc...). It picks winners and losers every day. That was the same point that the Daily Show made. Entire businesses are built around government contracts. It is in America's interest to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and that is why Bush created the ATVM program.

It's very nice to imagine that government should "leave business alone" but that just doesn't happen in our international world. Solyndra went under because China subsidized their solar panel industry that allowed their companies to undercut the international market pricing. That drove all the US solar panel companies out of business. I would much rather see Obama and the government called out for allowing that than complaining that Solyndra went out of business and defaulted on their loan.

 

[jerry33]

Solyndra went under because China subsidized their solar panel industry that allowed their companies to undercut the international market pricing. That drove all the US solar panel companies out of business. I would much rather see Obama and the government called out for allowing that than complaining that Solyndra went out of business and defaulted on their loan.

Me too, but when when you don't have anything positive on your side, the only thing you can do is to make the other side look bad.

 

[NigelM]

http://www.inautonews.com/romney-to-stop-gov-funding-for-ev-companies-if-he-wins-election

Republican Mitt Romney announced on Friday that he will stop government funding for EVs if he’s elected president.

On October 3rd, during his first presidential debate, Romney draw attention on the companies President Obama helped, including electric automakers Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors, and solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC and Ener1, calling them ‘losers’ among recipients of green-energy helped by the administration.

“Rather than investing in new electric auto and solar companies, we will invest in energy science and research to make discoveries that can actually change our energy world. And by 2020, we will achieve North American energy independence,” said Romney during a visit in Iowa.
​

At the beginning of this month A123 Systems, the EV lithium-ion battery company, filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection as it found itself in the impossibility to meet a debt payment deadline, fueling Romney’s opinion about government loans offered to these companies.
Although Fisker was cut off from the government’s loan for not being able to meet its milestones, Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk announced that the company managed to get back on the track and that he will make a first repayment of the US loan earlier than expected.

Tesla isn't one of those companies that "can actually change the world"??

 

[Grendal]

http://www.inautonews.com/romney-to-stop-gov-funding-for-ev-companies-if-he-wins-election



Tesla isn't one of those companies that "can actually change the world"??

So does that mean they aren't getting any MORE loans? Because they already received and got the first loan in full. Or is he just cutting off any other EV companies? Could anyone still get an ATVM (Bush Program) loan?

It's all meaningless anyway because it's all puffing and strutting to win votes from the uninformed.

He should be all for Tesla to succeed. But he needs to paint them as losers so he can blame Obama.

Note that the $1 trillion extra he wants to give to the military is equal to 133.3 million $7500 EV tax credits. So when he talks about saving money and complaining about the deficit that he's just spouting talking points.

 

[PopSmith]

Note that the $1 trillion extra he wants to give to the military is equal to 133.3 million $7500 EV tax credits. So when he talks about saving money and complaining about the deficit that he's just spouting talking points.

According to this article from Time the U.S. bought an average of 16 million cars annually from 2000-2007. At that rate $1 Trillion would give enough credits to last just over 8 years if every purchase qualified for the full amount. :scared:

I wonder where renewable energy would be if they put that $1T into it over the course of 20 years....

Rather than investing in new electric auto and solar companies, we will invest in energy science and research to make discoveries that can actually change our energy world. And by 2020, we will achieve North American energy independence,

I know it's not possible to "electrify the fleet" overnight (or even over a decade) but it's perplexing to me how anyone can be "independent" on a finite (and increasingly scarce) source of energy.

 

[jhs_7645]

http://www.inautonews.com/romney-to-stop-gov-funding-for-ev-companies-if-he-wins-election



Tesla isn't one of those companies that "can actually change the world"??

That article headline is just link bait, there's nothing new there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[mitch672]

It appears a politician's job these days is to get elected the next term. That means, if they are in the minority, they spend the current term obstructing and doing their best to discredit the other party. The only way to solve this is to limit politicians to one term only.

Or an independent third party, anyone remember a man named "H Ross Perot"? Last chance we had to "save the country".

Perhaps with the collapse of the USD/hyperinflation/U.S. economy and most the first world countries along with us, we'll get it right the next time. Nothing's forever, remember that.

 

[NigelM]

I could have put up with the whole lumping Tesla with Solyndra/Fisker thing as a slip in the hustle and bustle of campaigning, but the "Jeep production to China" lies/manipulation tipped me over the edge.