Fox emits misinformation about loans to fuel-efficient car companies
In reports on FoxNews.com, America's Newsroom, and Your World, Fox News repeatedly advanced misinformation about Department of Energy loans recently granted to Fisker Automotive and Tesla Motors to support development of fuel-efficient vehicles, suggesting that those funds would be ill-spent. The false or misleading claims include: that the loans will be used to build cars that cost $89,000 and $109,000; that the loans will finance foreign manufacturing; and that Fisker and Tesla are European companies.
Fox News misleadingly reports that loans will build cars that cost $89,000 and $109,000
MacCallum: "Here's the car that they're looking to build. ... The price tag for this green-mobile -- about $89,000." America's Newsroom co-host Martha MacCallum stated, "Listen to this. The U.S. government making a $529 million loan to a small car company that happens to be backed by former Vice President Al Gore. Here's the car that they're looking to build. Get this -- it is called the Karma, OK. It's called the Karma. It's a hybrid. It's built by Fisker Automotive. ... The price tag for this greenmobile -- about $89,000." MacCallum later added, "[O]ne of these cars costs $89,000 -- that's the one that Fisker is making. There's another company, Tesla Motors, and they got $465 million from the same program. They're building a car that costs $109,000." At the end of the segment, MacCallum noted, "[B]efore I let you go, I just want to point out that Fisker says that the Department of Energy loan is gonna be used to finance U.S. production of $40,000 family sedan." Nevertheless, during the segment, the on-screen text stated: "U.S. Loan To Finance Hybrid Car That Will Sell For $89,000." [America's Newsroom, 9/28/09]
FoxNews.com: $529 million loan "to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000." "The federal government has loaned $529 million to Fisker Automotive Inc., a small car company backed by Gore to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000, the Wall Street Journal reported. Fisker isn't the only automaker to reap millions from Uncle Sam. Tesla Motors Inc., which offers a $109,000 British-built electric Roadster, received a $465 million government loan." [FoxNews.com, 9/26/09]
Cavuto: "The hybrid sports car will sell for 89 grand." Your World host Neil Cavuto stated, "Now, funding for Finland, and you are footing the bill. An Al Gore-backed company scoring a $529 million federal loan to build cars over there. The hybrid sports car will sell for 89 grand -- not exactly an economy car. Now, we should note some of that cash will go toward building cars here, but that is years down the road." [Your World, 9/25/09]
In fact, Tesla loan and most of Fisker loan will finance less expensive sedans
68 percent of Fisker loan will finance manufacture of $39,900 "Project Nina" vehicles. According to a September 22 Department of Energy press release, $359.36 million of the $528.7 million loan will be used "for Fisker's Project Nina, involving the manufacture of a plug-in hybrid in the U.S. Fisker estimates that up to 75,000-100,000 of these highly efficient vehicles will roll off assembly lines in the U.S. every year beginning in late 2012." The remaining $169.3 million will be used "for engineering integration costs as [Fisker] works with primarily U.S. suppliers to complete the company's first vehicle," the $89,000 Fisker Karma. A September 22 Fisker Automotive Inc. press release states, "A majority of the more than $528 million in low-interest funds will go toward Project NINA, which will see the design, engineering and assembly of Fisker Automotive's next-generation plugin hybrids, starting at about $39,900 after tax credits."
Tesla loan will finance $49,900 Model S sedan, not $109,000 Roadster. According to a June 23 DOE press release, the loan "will finance a manufacturing facility for the Tesla Model S sedan" and the remaining funds "will support a facility to manufacture battery packs and electric drive trains to be used in Teslas and in vehicles built by other automakers." A June 23 Tesla press release states that the Model S has an "anticipated base price of $49,900" after the tax credit.
Fox News suggests loans will only create jobs "in Finland"
MacCallum: Loans "going to Finland to build cars." MacCallum teased her segment on the loans by stating, "U.S. taxpayers -- have you heard this? -- gave a half a billion dollars -- U.S. taxpayers -- to a car company that is creating jobs in Finland." During the segment, referencing both the Fisker and Tesla loans, she stated: "So all -- you've got all of this U.S. taxpayer money to encourage the building of fuel-efficient cars, but it's going to Finland to build cars that cost $89,000 and $109,000. So how is this going to, you know, make any impact on people who are just trying to buy a good car that's fuel efficient?" During the segment, on-screen text read, "Americans Fund Car Co That Will Create Jobs... In Finland":
FoxNews.com: Fisker loan will "help build a hybrid sports car in Finland." FoxNews.com reported that "[t]he federal government has loaned $529 million to Fisker Automotive Inc., a small car company backed by Gore to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000, the Wall Street Journal reported." [FoxNews.com, 9/26/09]
Moore: DOE loan money should "employ American workers to do this." Fox News contributor Stephen Moore stated, "I think most of the people watching this show, I think, would question the wisdom of the Department of Energy giving out these grants in the first place. But I think the vast, vast majority of Americans would say, at least if we do it, find an American company that's going to employ American workers to do this." Earlier in the segment, Cavuto noted that "some of that cash will go toward building cars here, but that is years down the road." During the segment, on-screen text stated, "$529M Gov't Loan Will Help Gore-Backed Co. Build Cars In Finland." [Your World, 9/26/09]
In fact, most of work related to the loans will be conducted in the U.S.
Fisker's Project Nina will be assembled "in the U.S." The September 22 DOE press release states that 68 percent of the Fisker loan will be used "for Fisker's Project Nina, involving the manufacture of a plug-in hybrid in the U.S. Fisker estimates that up to 75,000-100,000 of these highly efficient vehicles will roll off assembly lines in the U.S. every year beginning in late 2012." The press release states that with regard to the remaining funds -- which will be used for the production of the more expensive Fisker Karma -- that the engineering work "will be conducted at Fisker's Pontiac, Michigan office with support from its headquarters in Irvine, California," and that "[w]hile the final assembly of the Karma will be done overseas, more than 65 percent (based on cost) of the parts required for Karma will come from U.S. suppliers." DOE has concluded that "[t]he combined projects are anticipated to create thousands of jobs in the U.S. and provide substantial support for domestic parts suppliers saving or creating approximately 5,000 jobs." Henrik Fisker, CEO of Fisker Automotive, has reportedly "said that the current Karma would stay in Finland, but its successor could be built in the United States with the Nina vehicle (which will appear in late 2012)."
Tesla loan finances factories in California. The DOE press release states that the loan will "finance a manufacturing facility for the Tesla Model S Sedan" and that "[p]roduction of the Model S will begin in 2011 and ramp up to 20,000 vehicles per year by the end of 2013. This integrated facility expects to create 1,000 jobs in Southern California." The rest of the loan "will support a facility to manufacture battery packs and electric drive trains. ... The new facility expects to employ 650 people in the Bay area of Northern California." On August 18, Tesla announced that it will open the power train facility in Palo Alto, California.
Fox figures falsely claim Fisker, Tesla are European companies
America's Newsroom: "Why is European Car Company Getting Money From Uncle Sam?" The following on-screen text appeared during MacCallum's segment [America's Newsroom, 9/28/09]:
Moore: $1 billion went to "this Finland company" and "a British company." Moore stated: "[T]his is money that was supposed to be for creating jobs. It was Department of Energy money to create a new high-performance car that is fuel-efficient, electric car. Half a billion dollars went to this Finland company. By the way, there was another grant of about that same amount that's gone to a British company." Moore further stated that while he does not support the use of federal funds for this purpose, "If you were going to do it -- and I'm not in favor of it -- but if you were going to give out $1 billion, give it to an American company." [Your World, 9/25/09]
Cavuto: "[I]f we are going to do this, then let's make sure that American companies exclusively benefit." Echoing Moore, Cavuto stated, "I am not for this stuff. But then I would just say, 'All right, well, if we are going to do this -- if we are going to do this, then let's make sure that American companies exclusively benefit.' Like with cash for clunkers we found out a lot of these people are buying, you know, Mazdas and Toyotas. Good for Mazda. Good for Toyota. I am not begrudging them, you know, their attention and success, but I don't think that was the goal here." [Your World, 9/25/09]
In fact, Fisker and Tesla are American companies
Fisker based in Irvine, California. Fisker Automotive's website states that it is "a green American premium sports car company" and a joint venture of Fisker Coachbuild LLC and Quantum Technologies, both of which are California-based companies. Fisker "was founded in 2007 and is based in Irvine, California," according to its BusinessWeek profile.
Tesla based in San Carlos, California. Although Tesla's Roadster is built in Hethel, England, the company "is based in San Carlos, California with additional offices in Rochester Hills, Michigan and West Los Angel[e]s, California," according to its BusinessWeek profile.
Transcript
From the September 28 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
MacCALLUM: And the debate raged for months over saving carmakers in Michigan, as you well remember. But it hardly got any notice when U.S. taxpayers -- have you heard this? -- gave a half a billion dollars -- U.S. taxpayers -- to a car company that is creating jobs in Finland. A half a billion to build cars that most Americans will never be able to afford.
[...]
MacCALLUM: Well, it's a car loan of sorts, and it's raising some questions about the power of high-level access. Listen to this. The U.S. government making a $529 million loan to a small car company that happens to be backed by former Vice President Al Gore. Here's the car that they're looking to build. Get this -- it is called the Karma, OK. It's called the Karma. It's a hybrid. It's built by Fisker Automotive. You may never have heard of Fisker Automotive, but critics are asking why would this U.S. taxpayer funding be going to a car, Karma, that's built in Finland?
Well, that's a good question. The price tag for this greenmobile -- about $89,000. So who are they building this car for? Dave Williams with Citizens Against Government Waste joins us now. Dave, you know, this really caught my eye when I saw this story, because Al Gore is connected to this company, right?
WILLIAMS: He is.
MacCALLUM: And when you go into this, you learn that the Department of Energy spent a lot of time with Fisker. So they have lots of dollars to hand out at the Department of Energy for these programs. Spent a lot of time -- they did test drives with Fisker, they spent all of this energy being there. Why did this company get this huge amount of money from the U.S. government?
WILLIAMS: Well, it shows you that there's no such thing as a retired politician. Once you're a politician, you still have sway with agencies, with other politicians. And it shows that Al Gore still has a lot of clout, unfortunately, in the Department of Energy to secure a $500 million loan.
MacCALLUM: You know, the other car -- there are lots of other companies who applied for this money and didn't get it. And they are being a bit magnanimous about it. They're saying, you know, we're not suggesting that there's any connection, and it's highly possible that maybe Fisker has the best model. Do you think that's the case?
WILLIAMS: Well, no. I'm sure that's what their PR people are telling them to say, because I'm sure they're behind closed doors, you know, pounding the desk, going, "How come we didn't get this?" And everyone looks around and says, "Well, we don't have any influential lobbyists. We don't have the former vice president batting for us."
So, I think that, yeah, they're being very magnanimous, but I don't think it's very sincere. I think behind closed doors they're a lot more worried about this. And this is a program that started under President Bush, so this is, you know, the true hands of bipartisanship coming through here, is that you have a Republican president who signed this, and now you have a former vice president who is a Democrat that's taking advantage of it. Isn't this a beautiful world of bipartisanship?
MacCALLUM: You know, when you look at -- one of these cars costs $89,000 -- that's the one that Fisker is making. There's another company, Tesla Motors, and they got $465 million from the same program. They're building a car that costs $109,000. So all -- you've got all of this U.S. taxpayer money to encourage the building of fuel-efficient cars, but it's going to Finland to build cars that cost $89,000 and $109,000. So how is this going to, you know, make any impact on people who are just trying to buy a good car that's fuel efficient? They cannot afford to buy these.
WILLIAMS: It really isn't. When you talk about a $90,000 car and a $110,000 car, this isn't going to help average Americans. This isn't going to help the working class get these cars. What it does is providing -- is creating a new market for high-end hybrids and electric vehicles. And the last thing the government should be doing is putting money into this. If the private sector thinks that there's money that can be made with this, they should be funding it, not taxpayers. Imagine asking a taxpayer who makes $30,000 a year, saying, "Hey, listen, we want, you know, some of your money, so we can have a car to sell to rich people." That doesn't fly anymore.
MacCALLUM: Yeah, you know, and you're touching on the most important point of all of this. I mean, if you just let the car market decide where this money should go, and if these huge -- and there's a lot of big venture capital firms involved in these businesses -- if they believe so strongly that these are huge -- good investments that are gonna make them a ton of money, they're going to give these companies the money that they need, right?
WILLIAMS: I suspect that the private sector looked at this and said there is no market for it.
MacCALLUM: Well, that's scary.
WILLIAMS: So -- that -- that is scary. And the government --
MacCALLUM: Because they're messing with a lot of taxpayer dollars if that's the case.
WILLIAMS: And this is really the government of last resort saying, "We couldn't get money anywhere else, so we're coming to you, we know that you have no internal controls, and if we just get some popular vice president on our behalf, sure, we'll get a few hundred million dollars." And will the taxpayer ever get paid back for this? It is very highly unlikely that the taxpayer will get paid back this loan.
MacCALLUM: All right. And before I let you go, I just want to point out that Fisker says that the Department of Energy loan is gonna be used to finance U.S. production of $40,000 family sedan, but that sedan has yet to be designed. So we'll keep a close eye on that one. Thank you very much, Dave.
From the September 25 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Now, funding for Finland, and you're footing the bill. An Al Gore-backed company scoring a $529 million federal loan to build cars over there. The hybrid sports car will sell for 89 grand -- not exactly an economy car. Now, we should note some of that cash will go toward building cars here, but that is years down the road.
Well, Steve Moore from The Wall Street Journal says this Finland thing is a fiasco. But, Stephen, it's built in there, and I don't know how the heck it was built in there.
MOORE: Yeah. By the way, I'm with you, Neil. If somebody gave me the opportunity of a lifetime to work at the White House, I don't think I'd go and trash the president. And you know what? You know --
CAVUTO: Well, I'm not here to trash Matt. I mean, I am just here -- that's my opinion.
MOORE: No, no. But you know what? This is important, though.
CAVUTO: Matt is, you know, Matt -- that's fine.
MOORE: There is such a shortage of loyalty in this town of Washington that I live in, and Ronald Reagan said it best -- if you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog.
But let me just say this about this story about this company in Finland. I mean, this is money that was supposed to be for creating jobs. It was Department of Energy money to create a new high-performance car that is fuel-efficient, electric car. Half a billion dollars went to this Finland company. By the way, there was another grant of about that same amount that's gone to a British company. That's almost $1 billion, Neil, of federal money that is going to --
CAVUTO: But how did that happen? How did -- the idea was it was supposed to help us.
MOORE: Right.
CAVUTO: I mean --
MOORE: Exactly. Well, how it happened is a great mystery to me, because, you know, the point is I'm not for giving federal grants to any company, even if they're an American company. You know me, Neil. I don't like this kind of largesse. But at least if we're going to spend money --
CAVUTO: You wouldn't give money -- you wouldn't give money to your mother. I mean, I know that.
MOORE: Exactly.
CAVUTO: So the fact of the matter is --
MOORE: But my point is --
CAVUTO: No, I know, I know. But this is --
MOORE: If we're going to do it --
CAVUTO: I remember you had said, and you had written, that these are the dangers of federal largesse.
MOORE: That's right.
CAVUTO: You know, it gets out of hand, right?
MOORE: Yeah, but not only that. If you were going to do it -- and I'm not in favor of it -- but if you were going to give out $1 billion, give it to an American company. I mean, my goodness, Neil, Chrysler and GM are bankrupt. We've put $100 billion into these companies, and we're giving them money to our rivals.
And then think about this, Neil. We are borrowing $1 billion from the Europeans and the Chinese to get the money so we can give a grant to the European companies. With $1 billion, you could create about 20,000 middle-class jobs in this country. It just makes no sense from an economic policy standpoint.
CAVUTO: That's about 10 seconds of federal spending, but you are right. But let me ask you, Steve. The bigger issue here that I think a lot of people forget is that built into this government dependency, whatever its negative fallout, is that people are now expected either to buy cars, either to buy green cars, either to go green, to buy a house, to buy a bigger house -- the government is going to backstop us. And we were talking just before with Matt about something that happened a year ago with the arrival of TARP and, you know, all of that that we set, you know, in motion a dangerous precedent, did we not?
MOORE: Well, I would say so. And I think most of the people watching this show, I think, would question the wisdom of the Department of Energy giving out these grants in the first place. But I think the vast, vast majority of Americans would say, at least if we do it, find an American company that's going to employ American workers to do this.
CAVUTO: But you'd think that would be written into it
MOORE: I mean, we have 15 million Americans unemployed.
CAVUTO: But see, now I am not for this stuff. But then I would just say, "All right, well, if we are going to do this -- if we are going to do this, then let's make sure that American companies exclusively benefit." Like with cash for clunkers we found out a lot of these people are buying, you know, Mazdas and Toyotas. Good for Mazda. Good for Toyota. I am not begrudging them, you know, their attention and success, but I don't think that was the goal here.
MOORE: Well, I mean, the point -- the goal, they say, was two-fold. One was to create jobs with stimulus money. And the second was to create a new car that's fuel efficient and runs on batteries. And the Department of Energy says the best company they could find was this Finnish -- Finland company.
Look, I don't know about that, but I do know there are a lot of companies in the United States in the race to try to develop this technology. I mean, it would be like, you know, when we were trying to build a satellite and put -- be the first one to the moon, if we said, "You know what? We're going to contract this out to the Russians to do it." What sense would that make?
CAVUTO: That would have been weird, I guess. Stephen, always good having you. Thank you very much.
We've witnessed Fox News crop and distory his statements before, so misstating these loans should be no surprise.
Particularly when you combine Tea Party host Cavuto with Club For Growth founder Moore ...
So, no bailout money went to Tesla. Tesla didn't need to be bailed out. They were smart enough to look ahead and realize there would certainly be a market for electric cars. For that small bit of foresight, they deserve to receive loans to help them expand. They also didn't build an econobox. They build a sports car, and for the cost, likely the fastest one for the money you can buy (0-60 in 3.9 seconds, less than $110,000). Certainly the only electric with this kind of performance.
Tesla is not taxpayer funded. It was started by private investors who knew if they built a good enough electric car, people would buy it. The private sector invested in Tesla, not taxpayers, because they believed in the product, and it's ability to make money. For FOX Propaganda to say otherwise is simply fiction. They're lying.
The shell of the Tesla is built in Britain, by Lotus. The remainder of the car is manufactured and assembled here in the U.S. Tesla is not a British company, it is an American company. The money Tesla received was in the form of interest bearing loans, not grants. Considering that all the Tesla cars being built are mostly already sold, I think they will not have too much difficulty paying this money back. So, to say that the money was 'given' to Tesla, and that Tesla is a British car company, is also a lie brought to you by FOX Propaganda.
These people have no idea what they are talking about. They have not done the least bit of research to acquaint themselves with what the actual facts are. They do not wish to be bothered with reality. That's why they're working on FOX Propaganda. Bear in mind, it was these same conservatives who shipped car manufacturing and other industrial jobs overseas for the last thirty years, so all their bluster about 'buying American' is hypocritical to the point of permanent shame.
Both cars are being manufactured overseas, although in Fisker's case, the Energy Dept. "Estimates" that 65% of the parts will come from U.S. suppliers. They mentioned "Plans" to open U.S, manufacturing sites in the future.
Who are going to buy these cars? I checked the Tesla website and that car starts at $49,900, including the $7500 tax credit(which is only good to the end of 2010).
I know I don't have $50,000 to buy a car. The only cars these 2 companies make right now are both over $50,000. The less expensive sedans are still in the "Planning Stage"
My point is, the government shouldn't be giving loans or bailouts to any private companies. That's what banks are for.
I guess no one has a say in where their tax money is being spent. Fix the roads and education first.
And those payments went to local and state governments as well as private companies via tax breaks and other incentives.
Spending money in one place causes money to get spend in many other trickle-down places. Banks weren't loaning money. That's one of the symptoms of a recession, dum-dum.
Your (the average American's) wallet would have been hurting a lot more had Obama not done the Stimulus package and our nation had fallen into a Depression. Spending like this was mandatory, not voluntary. Bush, on the other hand, had a lot of voluntary spending increases and revenue decreasers. His is the obscene behavior, but, funny thing is, no tea parties objecting to his ridiculous spending and tax cuts! Funny.
I thought that the Tesla cost $40K ($32K with incentives) initially, with longer term costs in the 20s? I confess, I did not read he entire article.
You're thinking of the Chevrolet Volt- which, I might add, is going to be built in the U.S. as well.
The Tesla roadster is around $110,000 out the door, with a range of 200 miles on a single charge, for a cost of around $4. There may be incentives to help with the purchase of this car, and I'm sure Tesla could help with this. While the per month payments sound high, it's actually inline with the cost of other supercars. This one just happens to be electric, and, in the land of supercars, very affordable.
Most of the innovations we take for granted in automobiles were developed on the track by racers looking for an edge. In other words, privately funded research. I think Tesla decided to build a sports car rather than an econobox for similar reasons. The research they did building this car will benefit all who follow in their footsteps. President Bush II and GM, Ford, and Chrysler worked together with the oil companies to defeat the CARB legislation in California, but it turned out they locked the barn after the horse was stolen. Those few people who jumped through all the hoops and got an electric car in their garage quickly realized what a great idea it really is. Electric cars are the future.
1500x 60 months = 90000 plus 20000 down is 110,000. this doe not include sales tax or interest on the loan.
From wired.com
..same idea that drove the design of the Tesla, and perhaps its no surprise that the two most cutting-edge green cars both have their roots in Silicon Valley. Fisker has gotten big backing from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers- which includes such notable partners as enviro-darling Al Gore"
From KPCB website
"KPCB has announced an historic alliance with Generation Investment Management and its chairman Al Gore who has become a KPCB Partner. The combined network, expertise, vision and global reach of Gore, Generation and KPCB will help our entrepreneurs change the world.
KPCB Partners.... include John Denniston, John Doerr, Juliet Flint, John Gage, Wen Hsieh, Bill Joy, Randy Komisar, Ben Kortlang, Joe Lacob, Ray Lane, Aileen Lee, Ajit Nazre, Jordan Ormont, Ellen Pao, Ted Schlein, Trae Vassallo and David Wells in the U.S., and Tina Ju, Forrest Zhong and Joe Zhou in China. KR Sridhar is a strategic limited partner advising on Greentech."
And this is meant as an epithet?! When the HELL did POLLUTION become a GOOD THING?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These people are deranged
It must be nice to only have principles when they suit you poitically.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Come HERE to see what REAL principles look like!
Some fiscal conservtaive you are.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Try Again.
Its the banks job to loan money to private companies.
Whats your point again?
I mean... God forbid the government make an investment now, in the form of a loan, which they will get paid back to them anyway, to avoid a catashrophe down the road, which will inevitably cost many times as much to deal with later on.
No, I'm thinking it's you two that don't get it. Just because something hasn't not been done before doesn't make it a bad idea. I can't see anything wrong with this at all.
And your wrong anyway: the government DOES make loans to private companies, and historically these loans have a nigh spotless track record for getting paid back.
So. What. Is. Your. Problem. Here? And don't just give me maxims, talking about who's job is what. Try giving some actual REASONS as to why you're making the judgement you are.
----------------------------------------------------------
Your fears of socialism are greatly exagerated.
We have spent 2 million dollars of our own money crash testing vehicles and having them inspected by NHTSA, CARB, DOT, DEA and Ford Motor Company. We have tried for over a year to either borrow money for this project or obtain grants. There is a Grant HR1622 which was sponserd by Sen. Robert Menendez for R&D which should be passed sometime in the future.
My point is, we have an 88000 sq.ft. facility where we have made at least 20 CNG vehicles and we can employ at least 100 people with green jobs and we cannot obtain any help from ANY bank. How is it that we can lend money to compamies abroad but not companies based here? If you would like to see my facility please go to;
www.empirecoach.cc
-------------------------------------------------------
These guys crack me up. They love war but never serve. They talk about economics and business when most have never learned about the one or run one of the other.
But apparently the conservatives here would rather see you go under, or prohibit your expanison rather than have the gov't give you a loan when the bank won't. (Even as the gov gives loans to banks!)
And yet they can't do any beter than, "Gov't doesn't loan money, banks do" to make their point... Even when, in fact the banks AREN'T doing so.
------------------------------------------------
They're ignoring reality, as usual. Just my take anyway.
What the hell do call defense contracting then?! Why is that any different?
That is paying for a service provided to the US government.
And your wrong anyway: the government DOES make loans to private companies, and historically these loans have a nigh spotless track record for getting paid back
Never said it didnt said that is shouldnt.
LOL! That's rich. Umm... How is it "paying for a service provided by the gov't"?
Last time I check the GOV'T paid DEFENSE CONTRACTORS to design/build/sell THEM things so that they can pursue their agendas. (The good/service is provided by the contractor. TAXES would be 'paying for services provided by the GOV'T' LOL) And the last time I checked DEFENSE CONTRACTORS were PRIVATE COMPANIES who also do business with non-gov't entities as well. (Boeing, for example?)
The US constitution does not give the federal government the power to make loans.
Nor does it prohibit it. Most of the constitution defines what the gov't CANNOT do, as well as give a frameowrk for how it will operate day to day. You could fill, oh IDK... every book in a legal library, maybe? with things that our government does that are not expressle PERMITTED by the Constitution. (Thing is, they're not PRHIBITED either.)
You show me where it says they CAN'T and you'll have a point. (Or do a better job explaining why it's a BAD IDEA, maybe.) Otherwise: FAIL.
-----------------------------------------------------
FAIL FAIL FAIL
You need to calm down and make some sense man.
Government contractors provide direct services/products to the US Government. Giving a car companies loans provides no product or service to the US Government. How hard for you to understand I don’t want my money that I pay in taxes to be given/loaned to private companies when they provide no product/service to the Government. Is there’re massive fraud waste and abuse in the military and it contractors; you bet. All that shows is that Government cannot be trusted.
As far as you childish argument of the construction dosent say we can’t do it is ridiculous. The US constitution clearly defines each branch of government and what their powers are as well as specific thing they cannot do.
I suggest you read my post I didn’t say that I said PAYING FOR A SERVICE PROVIED TO THE GOVERNMENT. There hope you got it that time.
What is the impending catastrophe you are referring to?
I would think that you an the left would be dead set against this because, after all, The govt is lending money to an evil corporation. I guess if Al Gore is involved, then it's ok, because he has the best interests of the planet in mind, right? It has nothing to do with making money.
What happens if the company goes under? Who pays back the money? Not alot of people can even afford $30,000 for a car, let alone $50,00 or $80,000. So, some more of our tax money gets flushed down the drain. Are the govt. loan requirements much stricter than a private bank would be? I don't know that, so maybe you could tell me. I'm guessing they probably aren't.
If they gave the loans with the caveat that the cars must be built in the U.S., I could probably live with that, because that would at least create some jobs. But there is no such requirement. Only a vague promise that the companies are looking at opening a "U.S. manufacturing plant in the future." And when that happens,(If it does) How much more will that cost us in tax incentives (Which I know you liberals just love)and other give-aways.
And who is it in the govt. that is making the decision on which "Investments" are palpable risks? the way our govt. spends money, I don't trust their judgement, when it comes to risk assesment. Although I must admit, I would rather them loan someone money, than to give away millions to, say, build a tunnel so turtles won't have to cross the highway.
http://www.wcjb.com/news/4125/3-4-million-of-federal-stimulus-money-to-pay-for-turtle-tunnel
Yeah... that would be the inevitable long term effects of on-going, man-made cliamte change, which you lot simplistically refer to as 'global warming.'
I would think that you an the left would be dead set against this because, after all, The govt is lending money to an evil corporation.
If you 'would think' at all, then maybe you wouldn't sum us up with the stupid stereotypes and misrepresentations spoon-fed to you by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.
I guess if Al Gore is involved, then it's ok, because he has the best interests of the planet in mind, right? It has nothing to do with making money.
Does one have to take a loss in order to save the planet? Again that either a stupid simplification spoon fed to you by the right-wing0whack-jobs that environmental regs will only COST us jobs - that's nonsense - or it's an extnetion of your first, equally stupid simplification that we all "hate profit" or "hate corporations."
But given the choice of Company A making money while destroying the planet or Comapany B making money while saving it, while at the same time providing the same service, why the hell would ANYONE (other than company A's shareholders) pick company A?!
As for "Not alot of people can even afford $30,000 for a car" that's just stupid. Almost every new car that ANY company makes any profit from (US, Japanese or European) costs at least that much. These cars will be sold whetehr YOU buy one or not. So... HOW exactly is "more of our tax money get[ting] flushed down the drain"?! If they sell what the make, and there's no reason to think they won't, since every potential Prius owener will want one, then what's it to you?!
As for the turtles? As some point you lot will realize that it's not about turtles, its about putting people to work. There might be some things that we need more than turtle-crossings, (IDK, is that community overun? LOL) but one of those things we need more would be JOBS. You can nit-pick this stuff all you want but the alternative is that these workers stay home, make no money, go further into debt, lose there homes, blah, blah, etc, etc... and our economy continues to sink, and the whole country gopes to hell. There's a REASON that evey administration, Republican and Democratic, since the 1930's has turned to Keynes in time of economic trouble: IT WORKS.
All you guys want to do is DENY that there's a problem, DENY that there's a solution and do NOTHING while it all goes to hell. So I got an idea...: Why don't you just STFU instead, and just let the adults fix it all for you?
------------------------------------------------------
No objective analysis will support your position.
LOL that is a classic. So its ok to turn a profit when saving the entire planet, but not ok when providing health insurance. Unbelievable!!
OK, you're waaay of topic here, but let me enlighten you, because SOMEBODY has to:
It is perfectly OK for ANY company involved in PROVIDING HEALTH CARE (this includes financing it) to make a profit for doing so.
It is NEVER OK for a company to increase their profits by DENYING care to those who need it.
Now... If you're saying that insurance companies can't make a profit without screwing over their customers both medically and financially, then I think YOU just made the most damning argument against our current health care system that I've ever heard.
Thanks.
(*sigh* You guys always make it SO EASY.)
-----------------------------------------------
And the Democrats are PUSSIES for letting the public option die. If they don't bring it back, they deserve to be voted out.
Bottom line is that there isn't a manufacturing company in the US these days that isn't outsourcing some part of their production to another part of the world. And this is a LOAN..from a program specifically set up to advance fuel efficient vehicles (not create jobs)..they have to pay it back with interest. It's great that they are creating jobs both in the US and elsewhere..but this wasn't a criteria for the loan. Most of Detroit was just handed a bail out for decades of irresponsible business practice. This is really want should be outraging tax payers!
Additional they kept showing the new Tesla Model S while quoting the $109,000 Roadster price tag. These are different cars. The Model S is still expensive at $50k..but the price is dropping fast and the 3rd gen car is expected be in the $30k range.
I think Tesla and Fisker have shown very innovative business models. They are getting customers/"investors" with the interest and money to do so, to take a bit of risk and fund the next development cycle. The longer you can wait for this..the better and cheaper the product will be. This is the future and as time has shown us, new technologies start costly and come rapidly down in price. Thankfully, there are people/early adopters that are willing to take a chance and pay the price so that these things become available to everyone.