Is there any question that most Libtards flunked math?
Comments
-
Nevada is essentially investing in technology by forgoing future tax revenues. They are just doing it smarter than the Feds and there's more accountability at the state level too.
The Feds are better off funding / partnering with research at universities rather than directly funding a for-profit business and in fact, people at Universities in California started it. OTOH, Obama had to pay back his cronies and at least now, Solyndra is a byword for crony capitalism and maybe even political corruption.
Of course the Federal Government still funds tech via the massive military budget and top secret programs. DARPA has a budget of $3 billion alone.2001400ex said:
But but but, because of Solyndra, the government should never invest in technology again.HFNY said:IIRC, Solyndra was financed with over a half billion by the Federal Government so there was less accountability while it appears as though Nevada is not directly injecting cash into Telsa. I tend to believe foregone future tax revenues are often fluffed up to make companies feel better, kind of like Boeing's list prices. One must also consider the time value of money as it obviously hurt more that the Federales gave Solyndra over a half bill up-front while these tax concessions are probably streamed over 10, 20, or even more years. Nevada's tax concessions are also less risky than what the Feds did because Tesla is a leader in its field, has been a going concern for 15, and is selling roughly 20,000+ cars a year. WTF had Solyndra done to merit all that money other than mutual backscratching between idiots and Obama? How about A123 Battery?
Expanding on that a key variable is that Musk is a BILLIONAIRE while Solyndra's backers were cronies of the Obama admin (they were fundraisers for his 2008 run & Obama paid them back 2 years later) so their ROL (Return on Lobbying) was fantastically high. Has Elon Musk raised money for Nevada State Senators, House Reps, or for the Governor?
As for what Musk / Tesla is doing, I think it's brilliant and wished I had the foresight and money to do it. Can one imagine how impressed the Ancient Romans would've been with creating electricity from the sun and then being able to store it at one's residence for future use? This is really big stuff and could displace more oil use so that we can export more, burn less of it ourselves, and perhaps even lead to lower electricity prices (not in Seattle because SeattleCityLightFS and bloated). -
For every $500 million wasted on Solyndra and similar, we can discuss how many billions wasted on Halliburton and similar.HFNY said:Nevada is essentially investing in technology by forgoing future tax revenues. They are just doing it smarter than the Feds and there's more accountability at the state level too.
The Feds are better off funding / partnering with research at universities rather than directly funding a for-profit business and in fact, people at Universities in California started it. OTOH, Obama had to pay back his cronies and at least now, Solyndra is a byword for crony capitalism and maybe even political corruption.
Of course the Federal Government still funds tech via the massive military budget and top secret programs. DARPA has a budget of $3 billion alone.2001400ex said:
But but but, because of Solyndra, the government should never invest in technology again.HFNY said:IIRC, Solyndra was financed with over a half billion by the Federal Government so there was less accountability while it appears as though Nevada is not directly injecting cash into Telsa. I tend to believe foregone future tax revenues are often fluffed up to make companies feel better, kind of like Boeing's list prices. One must also consider the time value of money as it obviously hurt more that the Federales gave Solyndra over a half bill up-front while these tax concessions are probably streamed over 10, 20, or even more years. Nevada's tax concessions are also less risky than what the Feds did because Tesla is a leader in its field, has been a going concern for 15, and is selling roughly 20,000+ cars a year. WTF had Solyndra done to merit all that money other than mutual backscratching between idiots and Obama? How about A123 Battery?
Expanding on that a key variable is that Musk is a BILLIONAIRE while Solyndra's backers were cronies of the Obama admin (they were fundraisers for his 2008 run & Obama paid them back 2 years later) so their ROL (Return on Lobbying) was fantastically high. Has Elon Musk raised money for Nevada State Senators, House Reps, or for the Governor?
As for what Musk / Tesla is doing, I think it's brilliant and wished I had the foresight and money to do it. Can one imagine how impressed the Ancient Romans would've been with creating electricity from the sun and then being able to store it at one's residence for future use? This is really big stuff and could displace more oil use so that we can export more, burn less of it ourselves, and perhaps even lead to lower electricity prices (not in Seattle because SeattleCityLightFS and bloated).
HTH -
Obama has given no bid contracts to Haliburton.
Your boyfriend cheated on you again -
Link?RaceBannon said:Obama has given no bid contracts to Haliburton.
Your boyfriend cheated on you again
Besides you totally don't get my point. But that's OK, race you don't get anything. -
Is he starting to get it?2001400ex said:
But but but, because of Solyndra, the government should never invest in technology again.HFNY said:IIRC, Solyndra was financed with over a half billion by the Federal Government so there was less accountability while it appears as though Nevada is not directly injecting cash into Telsa. I tend to believe foregone future tax revenues are often fluffed up to make companies feel better, kind of like Boeing's list prices. One must also consider the time value of money as it obviously hurt more that the Federales gave Solyndra over a half bill up-front while these tax concessions are probably streamed over 10, 20, or even more years. Nevada's tax concessions are also less risky than what the Feds did because Tesla is a leader in its field, has been a going concern for 15, and is selling roughly 20,000+ cars a year. WTF had Solyndra done to merit all that money other than mutual backscratching between idiots and Obama? How about A123 Battery?
Expanding on that a key variable is that Musk is a BILLIONAIRE while Solyndra's backers were cronies of the Obama admin (they were fundraisers for his 2008 run & Obama paid them back 2 years later) so their ROL (Return on Lobbying) was fantastically high. Has Elon Musk raised money for Nevada State Senators, House Reps, or for the Governor?
As for what Musk / Tesla is doing, I think it's brilliant and wished I had the foresight and money to do it. Can one imagine how impressed the Ancient Romans would've been with creating electricity from the sun and then being able to store it at one's residence for future use? This is really big stuff and could displace more oil use so that we can export more, burn less of it ourselves, and perhaps even lead to lower electricity prices (not in Seattle because SeattleCityLightFS and bloated). -
Exactly. Giving tax cuts to the wealthy and money to oil companies is a much better use of our funds.d2d said:
Is he starting to get it?2001400ex said:
But but but, because of Solyndra, the government should never invest in technology again.HFNY said:IIRC, Solyndra was financed with over a half billion by the Federal Government so there was less accountability while it appears as though Nevada is not directly injecting cash into Telsa. I tend to believe foregone future tax revenues are often fluffed up to make companies feel better, kind of like Boeing's list prices. One must also consider the time value of money as it obviously hurt more that the Federales gave Solyndra over a half bill up-front while these tax concessions are probably streamed over 10, 20, or even more years. Nevada's tax concessions are also less risky than what the Feds did because Tesla is a leader in its field, has been a going concern for 15, and is selling roughly 20,000+ cars a year. WTF had Solyndra done to merit all that money other than mutual backscratching between idiots and Obama? How about A123 Battery?
Expanding on that a key variable is that Musk is a BILLIONAIRE while Solyndra's backers were cronies of the Obama admin (they were fundraisers for his 2008 run & Obama paid them back 2 years later) so their ROL (Return on Lobbying) was fantastically high. Has Elon Musk raised money for Nevada State Senators, House Reps, or for the Governor?
As for what Musk / Tesla is doing, I think it's brilliant and wished I had the foresight and money to do it. Can one imagine how impressed the Ancient Romans would've been with creating electricity from the sun and then being able to store it at one's residence for future use? This is really big stuff and could displace more oil use so that we can export more, burn less of it ourselves, and perhaps even lead to lower electricity prices (not in Seattle because SeattleCityLightFS and bloated). -
You need to learn to stick on the subject. Bringing up Halliburton is silly because they were tied to the previous administration and they actually provided logistics and services to American Troops in Iraq rather than the Feds directly investing in them.
But since you went off on a tangent, who is giving money to oil companies? Oil companies, like any other company, are legally allowed to depreciate their equipment and buildings. IIRC, Obama's "Stimulus" package permitted accelerated depreciation so if you have a problem with that, you need to call him about it.2001400ex said:
Exactly. Giving tax cuts to the wealthy and money to oil companies is a much better use of our funds.d2d said:
Is he starting to get it?2001400ex said:
But but but, because of Solyndra, the government should never invest in technology again.HFNY said:IIRC, Solyndra was financed with over a half billion by the Federal Government so there was less accountability while it appears as though Nevada is not directly injecting cash into Telsa. I tend to believe foregone future tax revenues are often fluffed up to make companies feel better, kind of like Boeing's list prices. One must also consider the time value of money as it obviously hurt more that the Federales gave Solyndra over a half bill up-front while these tax concessions are probably streamed over 10, 20, or even more years. Nevada's tax concessions are also less risky than what the Feds did because Tesla is a leader in its field, has been a going concern for 15, and is selling roughly 20,000+ cars a year. WTF had Solyndra done to merit all that money other than mutual backscratching between idiots and Obama? How about A123 Battery?
Expanding on that a key variable is that Musk is a BILLIONAIRE while Solyndra's backers were cronies of the Obama admin (they were fundraisers for his 2008 run & Obama paid them back 2 years later) so their ROL (Return on Lobbying) was fantastically high. Has Elon Musk raised money for Nevada State Senators, House Reps, or for the Governor?
As for what Musk / Tesla is doing, I think it's brilliant and wished I had the foresight and money to do it. Can one imagine how impressed the Ancient Romans would've been with creating electricity from the sun and then being able to store it at one's residence for future use? This is really big stuff and could displace more oil use so that we can export more, burn less of it ourselves, and perhaps even lead to lower electricity prices (not in Seattle because SeattleCityLightFS and bloated). -
I would research what the subsidies entail. Cause it's far from just depreciation.
-
Link?2001400ex said:
I would research what the subsidies entail. Cause it's far from just depreciation.
-
Elon Musk is brilliant for selling a $50K car to folks for $120K, cutting out the dealership overhead from the equation, and using/expanding govt regulations to force companies like GM to pay him $$$ to sell their own cars (fuel efficiency credits). That's his current business model.
That said, the battery future with current technology is still just plain dumb. Electrical transmission efficiency is still 35% or so, and you add battery efficiency to that and you have an extremely inefficient use of carbon fuel. And solar cells are still not economically viable...hence the large subsidies. And having the govt subsidize upper middle class people to attach electrically inefficient batteries to their house to make them feel better about their carbon footprint is extremely stupid and should anger everyone.
