Right-wing media launch bizarre attack on electric truck company Obama visited
Following President Obama's recent visit to Smith Electric Vehicles (SEV U.S.), right-wing media have criticized the start-up electric truck company, which received stimulus grants in 2009 and 2010. For instance, Fox called the company a "Total Joke" and claimed that SEV U.S. "has not been able to hire any new people in the last year," when in fact, SEV U.S. has hired 50 workers since starting production in October 2009.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Right-wing media claim SEV U.S. is a "Total Joke" and "did not hire any new employees" in the past year
Hoft claims Smith Electric Vehicles "did not hire any new employees." In a July 8 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft wrote, "After tripling the national deficit and watching unemployment surge to 10%, Barack Obama now believes that paying twice as much for a truck is good business." Hoft further wrote: "The Smith Electric Vehicle manufacturer makes trucks that cost twice as much as normal delivery trucks. The company only survived this year because of a federal grant. It did not hire any new employees."
Carlson: Smith Electric Vehicles "has not been able to hire any new people in the last year." On the July 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy discussed Obama's visit to the Smith Electric Vehicles plant in Kansas City, MO, and stated: "[H]e was touting the fact that, look, you know, my stimulus -- this stimulus is really working. What he really didn't say, though, was the only reason that that company is still open today is because they got a $32 million grant from the federal government to stay in business." Carlson cited cost estimates for Smith electric trucks versus standard diesel trucks and claimed: "Quite frankly, it's way more expensive for people in a recession to buy those. Also, he didn't -- he didn't mention that that company has not been able to hire any new people in the last year. Probably because of the recession."
Fox Nation: "Obama Praises Total Joke of a Company." Linking to Hoft's blog post, a July 9 Fox Nation headline asserted, "Obama Praises Total Joke of a Company":
In fact, SEV U.S. began production in October 2009 and currently employs 50 workers
SEV U.S. awarded stimulus grants in 2009, 2010. In August 2009, SEV U.S. was granted $10 million from the Recovery Act "to build and deploy up to 100 electric vehicles, including vans, pickups, and their 'Newton' brand medium duty trucks." In March, SEV U.S. was granted "an additional $22 million to help with the development of zero-emission trucks and research their effectiveness," according to the Associated Press. The Department of Energy states that its Transportation Electrification projects "will accelerate the development of U.S. manufacturing capacity for batteries and electric drive components as well as the deployment of electric drive vehicles."
SEV U.S. employs 50 people, plans to double workforce by end of the year. SEV U.S. began production in Kansas City in October 2009. A March 31 SEV U.S. press release states: "Smith's Kansas City assembly plant and corporate office currently employ approximately 50 people. The company anticipates employment to reach more than 100 by the end of the year." According to the Kansas City Business Journal, SEV U.S. announced in February that it "plans to build as many as 20 regional assembly plants throughout the country."
Marketplace: SEV U.S. "is one of the few manufacturers selling electric trucks to corporations." The Kansas City Star reported that "[t]he Smith Electric grants will help pay for vehicle development and establish a demonstration program to gain information on how the trucks perform in different applications. The grants also will allow the company to offer subsidies to customers that participate." Marketplace reported on July 8 that "Smith Electric Vehicles is one of the few manufacturers selling electric trucks to corporations. Among its clientele: Staples office supplies, Coca-Cola and Frito Lay."
SEV U.S. has offered to buy SEV U.K. Before receiving the stimulus grant, SEV U.S. "made a conditional offer to buy the Smith Electric Vehicles business based in the U.K.," according to a March 10 press release. The Financial Times reported on March 11:
Now Smith Electric Vehicles US Corporation, which numbers Coca-Cola among its customers, is offering to buy the UK business for £37m in cash, equivalent to 50p a share. The shares closed yesterday up 46 per cent at 41½p.
The offer is for the Smith Electric Vehicle business -- the 49 per cent of the US venture owned by Tanfield -- the licence agreement between the two, together with the intellectual property needed to operate Smith Electric round the world.
Tanfield has granted the potential buyer four months to finalise the offer, which is dependent on financing.
Hoft cropped CSM article to leave out forecast of future job growth in electric vehicle production. In his post, Hoft quoted a portion of a Christian Science Monitor article, but cropped out an assessment of future growth potential. From The Christian Science Monitor:
Highlighting jobs created by new electric truck makers might sound like a risky move for a president eager to show his policies -- including federal grants -- are making a difference in the economy. Who ever heard of an electric delivery truck anyway?
But like the image in a rear-view mirror, nearly silent, plug-in trucks -- and the jobs they could create as manufacturing of them increases -- may be a lot "closer than they appear," observers say.
Early market studies suggest that as much as 30 percent of urban work trucks could be standard (Toyota Prius-like) gas-electric hybrids by 2020, according to Calstart, a Pasadena-based, clean transportation technology organization that works with about 130 companies nationwide. Another 5 to 10 percent could be plug-in hybrid (electric mainly with small gas engine) or all-electric trucks.
"What we're seeing is confluence of more robust electric technology, steadily decreasing battery costs, and concern about the fuel-price roller coaster," says Bill Van Amburg, senior vice president for Calstart. "That has produced a stronger business case for companies to move toward electrifying their fleets."
If a "new employee" is someone who's never been a employee before, they may be right that the company didn't hire any new employees.
Damn them for hire experienced, out of work, people.
No...
I mean, I know mopes like Steve Doocy think the Earth has an endless supply of oil. But how do they think people would get around if that oil were to exhaust itself within 50 years?
Are these idiots terminally short-sighted?
If there was any hope of this company actually turning a profit why did the government have to give them taxpayer's money? Surely someone would have seen the potential in this business and invested in it.
For example, a few years back, near Greensboro, NC, Dell computers built a giant new manufacturing plant, but NOT before receiving many millions of dollars in tax breaks, and subsidies from the State of NC, and hence, their taxpayers.
This company applied for, and received a grant to help them along in their start up. For folks who always complain about Obama not helping business, this is an example of Obama helping business.
And again, this business has been going for a little over a year in the US. It takes businesses a lot more time than a year to turn a profit normally. So before you bury them, why not give them a chance to actually, you know, make a profit. With Coke as a customer, it's a good chance they can make a profit shortly.
In any case you've neatly ignored the point of my post, and tried to go off topic with a discussion on whether or not giving tax payer money to companies is acceptable behavior for the government. Please, re-read the article above, read my post and then reply with why you think it's justifiable to claim that this company has hired 50 new workers. I maintain that they haven't and will not until they are clear of taxpayer subsidies and have payed back the money to the taxpayers. Until that time any workers hired have been hired with public funds and should be counted as being on federal welfare.
The employees were hired; whether or not the company gets government subsidies makes no difference in this. You might say that the company wouldn't have hired them without those subsidies, but to say they weren't hired at all is to play an asinine word game.
Now this is a truly historic bit of a bit of stupidity. You essentially just stated that every member of the military as well police and firefighters are on welfare. Not just that, but every employee of a government contractor is also on welfare. I guess there's no need to use the reductio ad absurdum rebuttal when you guys do it all by yourselves.
He's simply a troll poster trying to pretend that he has a legit complaint.
What these misinformed individuals refuse to notice is that many of the members of Congress are benefiting from the same government they work for and attack.
I think that the "conservative" members in Congress since 2008 are among America's biggest welfare w*0res because they've been collecting $174,000 each + other benefits and have done nothing to help solve any of the problems we face.
I'd like to be able to ask one of them why they are willing to work for an employer that they say is a failure. Why work like h3ll to remain in Congress and call the government a failure at the same time? I would not want to be associated with a failure.
Do any of their supporters ever wonder why they should vote for them when they are a part of the SAME government that they say doesn't work? Based on my logic, this means that the reason government doesn't work is because they don't work.
I would not have remained in a high school classroom for 33 years if I hadn't liked kids,hadn't been interested in seeing them do well, and hadn't believed in the value of a good public education.
This isn't about the rightwing having an issue with the electric truck company at all.
It's ALL about attacking Obama. 100%.
Let's see... which company does this moniker best fit - Smith Electric Vehicles or Fox News? Hmmmm... Tough one.
Of course, the knobs at FOX have to ridicule the idea, because their corporate puppeteers have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Believe me, if electric cars were practical and affordable I'd be one of the first to praise their use. They'd get rid of a lot of inner city smog, reduce traffic noise, and use energy more efficiently just to name a few of their benefits.
Unfortunately no one is conspiring to keep your dream from you. The problem is with the science. No one has been able to come up with a more efficient and safe storage of energy than gasoline. There are scientists all over the world working on this very problem because the first one to come up with a solution is destined to become a multi-billionaire.
50k
new volvo
55k
They may become billionaires, but by Snicker's definition if they accepted any federal subsidies or tax breaks they will not be able to claim they ever hired anyone. Someone is certainly not supported by reality here.
What you seem to be proposing by intimating that the government increase gasoline prices is for the government to nationalize oil companies.
I thought you were a totally free market kind of person.
So insulting. Let's try and act older than 12, shall we......
bunch of stupid dee-bags
BTW, an electric vehicle has a lower cost to operate, which is why if they're $100k, you buy one and it pays for itself in a few years in gas savings and carbon credits.
Fox: Hates efficient markets.
At some point we'll have to take this step. I guess the Troglodytes don't want to bother because Jeeeeezzzzzuuuusssss will return before we run out of oil... or poison the planet... or both.
Again, this IS a new venture, and many times, new ventures need government help to get off the ground.
We HAVE to find alternatives to oil. We don't have a choice about that. The sooner we find those alternatives, even if it costs us some government funding now, the better.
But the rightwing media is trying to demonize this because it's the ABSOLUTE RIGHT THING TO DO.
And they can't let Obama get credit for doing the right thing, and since they KNOW it's the right thing, they have to pretend it's a bad thing.
Translation in Suespeak; "I ain't got no rebuttal, damn!"
His "point" had already been rebutted by the post ABOVE this one. He simply repeated things that had already been debunked.
Again, WHY do you fools think that we can't see previous posts?
It never worked then, still doesn't. Time to throw out the deck and redeal.
That's clear to everyone here.
As I already explained to EVERYONE, there was NOTHING to refute - the poster had simply repeated already debunked talking points.
This is not rocket science, but you apparently are STILL under the impression we can't see your previous posts and we don't know your history and my posting history here, and can't come to reasonable conclusions based upon that history! Get a clue.
Sue rocks!
Haven't you heard, nerz? Gawd is makin' new oil even as we speak, so we don't need none of that-thur tree-huggin' green energy...
As Confuscious said "The journey of a 1000 miles begins with one step."
You are a dumb a$$!
Get back with us when you actually HAVE A POINT, doofus!
You're right highlighter, it looks like a money pit. Liberals wallow in those if they funded by the government.
Was that a reason to not continue down that path? Of course not.
Your argument is 100% bogus.
And we can tell, you know, that you're being FED these posts and simply copying and pasting them as your own. You DO know this, right?
Sometimes you play right against what you are feebly try to argue in favor of.
But thanks for showing everyone how poor your reading comprehension is that you can't even keep stuff in context.
The previous poster's point was that this iteration of electric trucks leaves much to be desired.
But that fact is NOT a reason to assume that it's an effort that should be stopped right now, just like it wasn't a reason to stop making cars! Early cars left much to be desired too.
I know why you dodged it, you have no argument. Keep telling us again how smart you are.
Nope. I addressed gov't funding in OTHER posts, doofus.
In the post above, I was replying to what the previous poster had written. That's called keeping things in context and participating in a fair and reasonable debate! It's not rocket science!
But thanks for again showing everyone that when you can't refute the facts you'll choose to make a baseless personal attack.
Aviation, for example, needed all kinds of funding to get it off the ground.
And that funding didn't work out so well at first. And contemporaries were upset at the funding, and said the same things that you've been saying!
"Ultimately, not only did the U.S. Army receive nothing for its investment, but it suffered severe criticism for taking what was in reality a far sighted initiative that entailed reasonable risk and promised potentially great rewards. The press, which had been cut off from information on the aerodrome project by Langley's penchant for secrecy, pilloried the scientist for his failure and ridiculed the Army for financing such an impractical scheme. Worse, several important congress men denounced the Army for wasting public funds. Fearing for future appropriations, chastened Army leaders backed away from aviation as quickly as they could."
http://avstop.com/history/signal.htm
And yeah, didn't aviation turn out to be such a stupid idea?
If the government back out how ever did they airline industry survive. Hrmm I wonder if the free market had anything do with that.
They DID fund early planes and early attempts to make planes - MY example, so thanks for showing everyone that you didn't even bother to click on my link, because YOU aren't really interested in participating in a fair and reasonable debate on this topic!
The gov't is not funding this initiative simply to create jobs or make greenies feel better. It's because it's a good investment in our future!
And it was STUPID and shortsighted for the Army to back away from funding aviation. How do you NOT know that aviation was a great investment?
Check this out highliter!
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/sommer/ibm-wantin-and-gettin-stimulus-money/416
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10158277-16.html
In other words, you don't have any real idea what you're talking about and are just throwing s#!t at the wall and hoping it sticks to Obama. BTW, the Wright Flyer didn't have much range, speed, or payload either; should they have just chucked the whole thing, cave-dweller?...
If I recall correctly, that was their first sale. Certainly their first substantial sale...
I'm sure you would have been a Troglodyte in any era!
Well, I am about to build a car that runs on liberal rhetoric, I don't need government money for that. The fuel supply is endless.
I thought you *sob* SURROUND US.
If you think the Republican base would ever be able to leave the house again without velcro, you're living in a fantasy.
Psst. I think that was actually his point. Nice job playing your part, though.
Our government has been instrumental in the creation of many useful things (velcro, the internet, etc.) You two morons put your fingers in your ears, scream "la-la-la-la" because it doesn't fit your narrative that govt=bad.
The point is that advances in technology many times start with something slow ("proof of concept"). We need to find a long term solution to our fossil based fuel addiction - this is a first step in that direction.
Stop being such an idealogue and open your mind that our government can do some things right. No one's arguing that there is wasted money, effort, etc - this goes hand in hand with any large organization (public or private). But if the choice is sit around and do nothing because of fear of failure, or try to do something extraodinary, I'll take the latter any day of the week. I think Beck would call that "American Exceptionalism".
Heck, we didn't get to be the country we are today because we sat on our hands!
Why do you hate our troops?
Besides the fact that you think "myelft" is a word? This Dam sounds like a pretty sharp guy.
But you are wrong about the government and the internet. It was a military system that eventually evolved into the internet. Without government's investment into it, we wouldn't be able to have the greatest porn distribution system in the world.
As to your last comment - where's your proof? Just admit, the govt does add value no matter what you say. It's not perfect, but I didn't claim it to be so.
Which is exactly what we are talking about. Do you really not see that? Or are you being purposefully obtuse? Classic circular argument.
"The government should not be helping people develop technology."
"They did with the internet."
"Only its creation."
"Huh?"
"I think its been proven that free market innovation is far superior to government ran/subsidized programs." - hi
Right. Which is why Chevrolet was the first private company to land on the moon and not NASA. You cannot really be this stupid.
Uncle Rupert can pay.
The free market missed its chance to get off oil.
Decent living wages, softer business cycles, old people not dying penniless, rural electrification...
We did. The argument's over. The conclusion is that some countries are better at certain things, other countries are better at other things, but overall the differences aren't remotely comparable to the cost difference.
"grow the government as much as possible"
Only in things the free market sucks at. Can't you read? When the free market does good, the government doesn't grow. And we give it every chance in the world.
Your lack of faith in the free market is disturbing.
Wow. Really? You don't know any of those answers yourself? Look up FDIC. Or Great Depression. Or recent financial history of the last 3 years. Are you really this ignorant?
Taking $32 million dollars for 50 jobs is a little excessive isn't it?
That is some of the most expensive vote buying I have ever seen.