In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1397
Online now 1316 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
So we borrowed money from the Chinese, to give to Fisker, which is now being sold back to the Chinese?
I don't know whether to be angry at Obama or seriously impressed with the Chinese. Damn.
Choose angry. You are always angry with Obama. Don't want to break the string.
Reality is the US automotive market is in flatline mode. The boom/growth went away 2 decades ago. Between cars lasting longer and economics its a stagnant market.
GM, Ford, Fiat Chrysler all see Asia and India as the next growth markets not North America.
Like folks say, we live in a global market age.
Hey, other than Obama wanting to raise my taxes and steal my guns, I don't have any problems with him.
So let's accept your premise that the automotive industry is in flatline mode. I think that's debatable, and it's a claim that's been made many times before, but let's roll with it for now. Why in the hell did Obama invest in this company in the first place if the automotive market is dead? And wouldn't something as innovative as a viable electric vehicle be something we'd want to develop and keep here in the U.S. as opposed to giving up and allowing the Chinese to take over?
This is the same thread we've had about a million times on this forum. The Right wants no investment in new energy technology and the Left says we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Blah, blah, blah.
We could have a very good debate on whether or not it's the government's role to invest in new energy technology. You might even convince me why we should. But it's the repeated failures of the current administration's investments that serve to discredit the notion that it's a good idea. Hey, I've made a few bad investments in my time. (I still can't believe WebVan didn't make me millions...) But somehow investing, when we don't really have the money to do so, having that investment crater, and then having the smoking ruins sold back to the country to which you are up to your eyeballs in debt with - that's icing on the cake, IMO.
Truthfully on this forum we couldn't have a rational debate on the benefits of apples vs oranges. But investing in the future is worthwhile no matter when you do it. If we don't do it know, when will we do this? Government almost always runs a deficit and with the current anti-tax increase climate this is not going to change anytime soon. In reality investing in a future where we are less dependent on imports should be a benefit.
fishy is frustrated because I didn't use the FoxNews 4 word blub. It is Obama's fault.
Still hiding under the wings of your government job there fishy?
Are you saying we should keep investing in fossil fuels?
Are you saying we should just throw money at anything green and hope something works?!? This isn't a debate about wind, solar, or electric. This is about the Obama administration clearly fucking up their "investments."
You seem pretty knowledgable on the failure rate of the current administrations investment in energy efficiency.
What do you suppose a reasonable failure rate is for making loans to spur investment and research?
What do you suppose the failure rate has actually been?
You can do research if you'd like (I already have)....or you could just post your opinions....either would be instructive I think.
Cool - of the wild successes you're bound to quote, how many others have resulted in the Chinese obtaining whatever technology was developed?
If you want to talk about "fucked up" investments, lets talk Iraq or Reagan's "Star Wars". C'mon, this is nothing but hate for Obama. You and I have little knowledge about any government investments other than those that are in the press and many are worthwhile. Obama is far from the only President whose admin had investments go wrong.
The techniques to burn fossil fuels are cleaner than ever these days but that is not the point. The point is to become more energy independent. And wind, solar and battery energy are not age old technology and are constantly in development to become more efficient.
I would agree with you that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq. Or Afghanistan, or any of those other third world hell holes.
Star Wars is an interesting point. I don't think there was ever an intent to have a system where lasers shot missiles out of the sky, or any nonsense like that. I believe it was all a ploy to bankrupt and effectively end the USSR. In that respect, it was somewhat successful.
a I don't believe anyone is saying not to invest in the future, just that governments role in that investment should be limited to research grants at most, not picking private enterprises to shovel money at.
b Government doesn't always run a deficit, let alone anywhere approaching current levels, just another "New Reality" we are all supposed to swallow.
c If it is so beneficial, the market will happily invest. If Obama has done anything while in office, it is prove government should not invest in business, his track record is just about 100% - failure.
"This board would be great if it weren't for all the posters. ." -- AA Spartan 12/16/11
We did bankrupt the USSR through scaring the shit out of them to the point they spent themselves broke, resulting in the "Peace Dividend" of the Clinton administration, so yes, it was totally successful.
GRR has gone over of the edge. His posts descended into Madhatter terrortity in the last year. He is either senile or delusional .
This post was edited by lars 14 months ago
Exactly. So saying that Star Wars was a bad investment and putting it in the same discussion as Solyndra, Fisker, or any of these other crap sandwich investments isn't really fair.
It's highly debatable that Reagan's Star Wars caused the financial downfall of Russia. But it's not that the huge defense expenditure under his admin created a correspondingly huge deficit.
Ever here of American Motors fishy? Former Gov Romney who "saved" American Motors via massive government purchases by the USPS, DoD, and other Federal agencies?
Of course not because that doesn't fit into your black and white world.
At least the Italians aren't god-less Commies.
Why? It is a religious thing.
It is not his business acumen.
Question authority. Power to the people
Dude....please demonstrate where I've used half truths.
I'm anxiously awaiting any use of any data from you.
I'm just requesting that you define what would be a reasonable success rate.
If a govenrnment invests $100B in green energy projects, some traditional stuff, some cutting edged stuff, what would you expect the default rate to be on those loans after three years?
And what do you think it is?
Surely a reasonable person wouldn't judge the success or failure of this type of initiative without opinions on those two questions?
It's not about the batting average. I'm just amazed that A123, Ener1, Fisker, etc. all end up in foreign hands after they tank.
I don't believe I've used any half truths at any time in the recent past.
Please point out where I have.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports