https://www.ff.org/should-single-moms-be-forced-to-subsidize-luxury-electric-cars-for-rich-professionals/

Single mom's need electric cars in their future as much as the rest of us do. We need to get the infrastructure started for this to be a success. No company can do it alone. You want to get us free from the dependency on middle east oil? It's worth the investment. 8 billion dollars represents 4 days worth of oil coming out if opec. Weak on facts? Go emotional. Playing the single mom's against millionaires card is pure emotional bullshit. The wealthy started the initial car industry too. Eventually, we will all be driving them . The question you should be asking is wil they say Toyota and Honda, or Tesla and Apple? Maybe the Japanese will subsidise single mom's, but I doubt it. Get a clue about what is truly at stake here, and who stands to benefit.

idiots abound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Single mom's need electric cars in their future as
> much as the rest of us do. We need to get the
> infrastructure started for this to be a success.
> No company can do it alone. You want to get us
> free from the dependency on middle east oil? It's
> worth the investment. 8 billion dollars represents
> 4 days worth of oil coming out if opec. Weak on
> facts? Go emotional. Playing the single mom's
> against millionaires card is pure emotional
> bullshit. The wealthy started the initial car
> industry too. Eventually, we will all be driving
> them . The question you should be asking is wil
> they say Toyota and Honda, or Tesla and Apple?
> Maybe the Japanese will subsidise single mom's,
> but I doubt it. Get a clue about what is truly at
> stake here, and who stands to benefit.


Pure bullshit.

Tesla, Musk, it's investors, and wealthy owners all are parasites.

Crony capitalism is not good, regardless of the beneficiary.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/tag/tesla/

What a thoughtful and insightful retort. Do you have logical reasons for your point of veiw, or do you just dislike wealthy people? Mr. Musk is building the future, while you are, well, what exactly have you done worthy of mention? Or are you just sponging off wealth parasites while living off the technology that they advance?

it's GM that is building the future in the form of the Chevy Bolt. After paying back the loans it was extended after the financial crash in 2008, GM has designed and built a very competitive entry in the electric car field. As for government sponsored investments - just look at the Halliburton graphic above and reflect on how well the reported $70 Billion annual support of the oil industry is turning out (or the $500M sunk into Solyndra, and on and on). Let free enterprise do what it does best and leave the government out of it!!

actually... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's GM that is building the future in the form of
> the Chevy Bolt. After paying back the loans it
> was extended after the financial crash in 2008, GM
> has designed and built a very competitive entry in
> the electric car field. As for government
> sponsored investments - just look at the
> Halliburton graphic above and reflect on how well
> the reported $70 Billion annual support of the oil
> industry is turning out (or the $500M sunk into
> Solyndra, and on and on). Let free enterprise do
> what it does best and leave the government out of
> it!!

Um, Taxpayers lost $10 billion with the communist GM bailout. By the way, when will they pay it back? They've made $22 billion since.

idiots abound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a thoughtful and insightful retort. Do you
> have logical reasons for your point of veiw, or do
> you just dislike wealthy people? Mr. Musk is
> building the future, while you are, well, what
> exactly have you done worthy of mention? Or are
> you just sponging off wealth parasites while
> living off the technology that they advance?


Musk has enriched himself and is investors on the backs of taxpayers.

We're not talking about investing in just cars. We're also talking about investing in the infrastructure for electric vehicles. Charging stations are needed to help shift transportation from oil based to electric based vehicles. The government invests in roads, bridges, dams, and many other infrastructure to encourage growth and jobs. We've gone from 20 million manufacturing jobs to around 5 million jobs in just over 35 years. One reason for this is that Japan, Korea, Germany, China and others subsidise their industry. I'm not in favor of government subsidies as a whole, investing in infrastructur is smart, and the returns on such investment in the past has paid off many times over. I'd be more in favour of tariffs for improper foreign subsidies, it never seems to happen. Getting us out of the middle east by reducing the need for their oil is only going to help us in the long run. It sucks subsidizing the terrorist that want us dead or under submission by buying the oil that pays for it. A few billion dollars invested is a lot cheaper than military lives lost and expensive weapons and munitions. It seems loke a peaceful solution to dealing with opec sponsored terrorism.

idiots abound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We're not talking about investing in just cars.
> We're also talking about investing in the
> infrastructure for electric vehicles. Charging
> stations are needed to help shift transportation
> from oil based to electric based vehicles. The
> government invests in roads, bridges, dams, and
> many other infrastructure to encourage growth and
> jobs. We've gone from 20 million manufacturing
> jobs to around 5 million jobs in just over 35
> years. One reason for this is that Japan, Korea,
> Germany, China and others subsidise their
> industry. I'm not in favor of government subsidies
> as a whole, investing in infrastructur is smart,
> and the returns on such investment in the past has
> paid off many times over. I'd be more in favour of
> tariffs for improper foreign subsidies, it never
> seems to happen. Getting us out of the middle east
> by reducing the need for their oil is only going
> to help us in the long run. It sucks subsidizing
> the terrorist that want us dead or under
> submission by buying the oil that pays for it. A
> few billion dollars invested is a lot cheaper than
> military lives lost and expensive weapons and
> munitions. It seems loke a peaceful solution to
> dealing with opec sponsored terrorism.


If you handn't noticed, there's a huge glut of oil since we figured out that horizontal drilling thingy. Which is in large part why Tesla requires the large subsidies that it does. Even with it's still only marginally economically feasible and that's with Telsa playing accounting games hoping to build and sell enough of them before its credit line eats itself and the company.

GM, Ford, Toyota, BMW, etc., all can make it without the subsidies that Tesla requires. Lots of places have charging stations independent of Tesla. Building "infrastructure" to support weakness in Tesla's vehicle range isn't really the job of the government.

The Federal government spent between $83B each year on average for the past 35 years (with another 3X that amount contributed by the States) and what did it get us? - a reduction of manufacturing jobs that you noted.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), public spending, including federal, state and local governments, transportation and water infrastructure amounted to $416 billion in 2014, of which $96 billion came from the federal government.[1] In real terms, this reflects a higher expenditure than the historical average of $83 billion.

btw, the U.S. imports about 13% of its oil consumption from the Middle East. It is not to protect this relatively small source of oil that the U.S. is involved in the Middle East - see the arms business and Israeli lobby for the answer...

The Obama years have been a boom time for America's weapons makers. Since 2009, the United States has approved arms deals worth some $200 billion—more than under any other presidency. The deals include sending Apache helicopters to Qatar, "bunker buster" bombs and cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia, and Hellfire missiles all over the place. Predicting an increase in weapons sales fueled by the war against ISIS, an unnamed American weapons manufacturing executive told Reuters last year: "Everyone in the region is talking about building up supplies for 5 to 10 years. This is going to be a long fight. It's a huge growth area for us."

The United States currently controls more than half of the global arms market. Its top five customers are Saudi Arabia (more than $100B of arms since 2009), the United Arab Emirates, Australia, Iraq, and Israel.

So, I note the irony in your reference to a "peaceful solution" - would that it were so...

okay... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Federal government spent between $83B each
> year on average for the past 35 years (with
> another 3X that amount contributed by the States)
> and what did it get us? - a reduction of
> manufacturing jobs that you noted.
>
> According to the Congressional Budget Office
> (CBO), public spending, including federal, state
> and local governments, transportation and water
> infrastructure amounted to $416 billion in 2014,
> of which $96 billion came from the federal
> government.[1] In real terms, this reflects a
> higher expenditure than the historical average of
> $83 billion.
>
> btw, the U.S. imports about 13% of its oil
> consumption from the Middle East. It is not to
> protect this relatively small source of oil that
> the U.S. is involved in the Middle East - see the
> arms business and Israeli lobby for the answer...
>
> The Obama years have been a boom time for
> America's weapons makers. Since 2009, the United
> States has approved arms deals worth some $200
> billion—more than under any other presidency.
> The deals include sending Apache helicopters to
> Qatar, "bunker buster" bombs and cluster munitions
> to Saudi Arabia, and Hellfire missiles all over
> the place. Predicting an increase in weapons sales
> fueled by the war against ISIS, an unnamed
> American weapons manufacturing executive told
> Reuters last year: "Everyone in the region is
> talking about building up supplies for 5 to 10
> years. This is going to be a long fight. It's a
> huge growth area for us."
>
> The United States currently controls more than
> half of the global arms market. Its top five
> customers are Saudi Arabia (more than $100B of
> arms since 2009), the United Arab Emirates,
> Australia, Iraq, and Israel.
>
> So, I note the irony in your reference to a
> "peaceful solution" - would that it were so...


WTF does that have to do with middle-class taxpayers providing ridiculous levels of subsidies to a commercial-scale (i.e., not R&D), publicly-traded company with a market cap of $30 billion and, assuming that it has such great promise of profitability, has plenty of other sources for commercial financing?

I like electric vehicles. I just don't like Tesla, Musk, and his investors sucking money out of middle-class taxpayers to make themselves rich and subsidize their wealthy customer's very expensive toys.

idiots abound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We're not talking about investing in just cars.
> We're also talking about investing in the
> infrastructure for electric vehicles. Charging
> stations are needed to help shift transportation
> from oil based to electric based vehicles. The
> government invests in roads, bridges, dams, and
> many other infrastructure to encourage growth and
> jobs. We've gone from 20 million manufacturing
> jobs to around 5 million jobs in just over 35
> years. One reason for this is that Japan, Korea,
> Germany, China and others subsidise their
> industry. I'm not in favor of government subsidies
> as a whole, investing in infrastructur is smart,
> and the returns on such investment in the past has
> paid off many times over. I'd be more in favour of
> tariffs for improper foreign subsidies, it never
> seems to happen. Getting us out of the middle east
> by reducing the need for their oil is only going
> to help us in the long run. It sucks subsidizing
> the terrorist that want us dead or under
> submission by buying the oil that pays for it. A
> few billion dollars invested is a lot cheaper than
> military lives lost and expensive weapons and
> munitions. It seems loke a peaceful solution to
> dealing with opec sponsored terrorism.

The votes for neocons lime Bush, Obama nad Hillary keep the war for oil pipelines and the heroin trade alive. Hillary and Obama are selling off our natural resources at an astounding rate. Obama has sold off millions of acres in the gulf for oil drilling. Libs say nothing.

Trump isn't one of them. He's an American and the neocon war mongers are scares to death.

It's time to fuck them all and take America back.

Tesla Burns Through $620 Million, Loses $13,000 Per Car Made Ahead Of Model 3 Launch

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-03/tesla-burns-through-620-million-loses-13000-car-made-ahead-model-3-launch