# Republican Romney Slams Fisker, Tesla in Final Debate



## ndplume (May 31, 2010)

Where do we get these "news" stories. 

From the last debate transcripts -

Romney "We’re going to have to have a president, however, that doesn't think that somehow the government investing in -- in car companies like Tesla and -- and Fisker, making electric battery cars. This is not research, Mr President, these are the government investing in companies."

Does not "repeat" anywhere that these companies are losers. Its unfortunate that Telsa and Fisker felt the need to be propped up by the tax payers and turned up an examples. I hope they stop taking govt assistance, pay back the taxpayers and become enormously successful businesses.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

What about it is questionable? Romney said it and repeated it a few times. A California car company that doesn't use any oil is the Republican parties worse nightmare. They want it to be a loser and will probably use government regulations to slow it down and cost them money if they are in charge.


----------



## ndplume (May 31, 2010)

The sentence says _Mitt Romney repeated his charge that Fisker and Telsa are 'losers,'_, 
When you go to the article its talking about the last debate which I heard. 
In the last debate, I printed the text from the transcript, he didn't "repeat" that they were losers in nor out of context. My understanding is that he is pointing out that using tax payer money to invest in "favored" companies simply drives competition away. He listed those companies of 2 examples where that occurred. 
So I'm wondering if this is "made up" news intended to drive further divisions in the population. This time by how their automobile is propelled?

Where did this come from?
_A California car company that doesn't use any oil is the Republican parties worse nightmare. They *want it to be a loser* and will probably use government regulations to slow it down and cost them money if they are in charge._
I didn't notice this in the Republican Planks.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

I thought it was obvious that Tesla didn't get government assistance. They got a government loan that they are on their way toward paying off. I might add that Ford got a much larger loan of the same type.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

ndplume said:


> The sentence says _Mitt Romney repeated his charge that Fisker and Telsa are 'losers,'_,
> When you go to the article its talking about the last debate which I heard.
> In the last debate, I printed the text from the transcript, he didn't "repeat" that they were losers in nor out of context. My understanding is that he is pointing out that using tax payer money to invest in "favored" companies simply drives competition away. He listed those companies of 2 examples where that occurred.
> So I'm wondering if this is "made up" news intended to drive further divisions in the population. This time by how their automobile is propelled?
> ...


1. You wouldn't just be electing Romney, but if Romney wins with 1 more electoral vote, it will be seen as a 'mandate' by the Right that they won and can pass whatever laws they want. 

2. I'm seeing that in Ohio right now. The state government is cutting every dollar they can, but the city government is having to raise our taxes to make up the difference.

3. With friends like the Heartland Institute, and the big donors to his campaign from the oil and coal sectors, I think he will just be like Reagan and do whatever needs to be done to get rid of clean energy subsidies and investment. It might mean that he just turns on the gas and oil spigot full on, with no regard to future supplies once the baby boomers are dead, or that the Tea Party will see it as interfering with the 'free' market and cut wind and solar projects.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/cars/...6bce78-1d5a-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html

The Washington Post had a good write-up about this. It looks like the next sentence that Romney said in the debate was related to Solyndra... So, it is code for giving money to companies that are not profitable in the market place and will be failures.


----------



## ndplume (May 31, 2010)

Where did you get this again? I've never heard anything like it, have not seen in in the R plank, nor heard of any candidate espousing this -
_A California car company that doesn't use any oil is the Republican parties worse nightmare. They want it to be a loser and will probably use government regulations to slow it down and cost them money if they are in charge._

Yes, in my state we lost federal dollars too. The State Gov't had a big debate between spending the "Emergency fund" or cutting govt spending. The prevailing leaders decided that a contracting economy was NOT an emergency, but a trend, so they cut the state spending to match revenue which forced all the dependent cities to re-evaluate their spending as well. Most cities around here cut spending and held taxes. Mine cut spending AND raised taxes. Again. They are pricing themselves out of the competition.
The cities seemed to survive with less and as the economy recovers, I hope the cities can control themselves and figure out how to do the same with less like the private sector is doing. I believe that the tax payers will spend the money more wisely than the govt. Personally, I'd like to have it to purchase some new Lithiums so I can help reduce demand, thus reducing the price of our $3.80/gallon fuel when I do need it.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

A lot of the Republicans I know hate 'liberal' California and always make fun of their strong arm regulations and laugh when they have problems.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01#

It isn't a secret which side the Oil and Gas companies side with. If EV batteries and Tesla succeed and the switch is like VHS to DVD or regular TV to HDTV, things can move very quickly. We aren't there yet, but a few million people not buying gas anymore might lower the price too far. If they can't make money by running the tar sand oil operations, then they'll have no choice but to use their cartel powers to keep the price high, or let some people go.

And yes, laws can be passed targeting certain industries to make the red tape and hurtles so high that they can't be overcome. Yes, the Democrats do it to pipeline projects, but I just went through the process of getting a simple solar panel project approved in a Republican county and it wasn't as easy as it should have been. And it took 5 months and over $600 worth of 'fees' to get it approved. That is close to 10% of the cost of the entire system post-federal tax break.

And don't get me started on how often Fox News and Romney/Ryan keep bringing up Solyndra... It should have been dealt with a little differently, and the government should have been a guaranteed buyer for their product if the market didn't buy it for a few months. But, the Right Wing think they have stumbled onto Watergate or something. They would love to hang the failures of other green companies on Obama instead of being Teddy Roosevelt style Republicans and improving the environment.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Solyndra wasn't just a failed green company. It was a money shoveling project for Obama donors...and there was never a viable business plan. The money ran out the exact month predicted by the auditors when they advised not giving the money.


----------



## ndplume (May 31, 2010)

Its sad that California govt allows "Strong Arm" regulations. However, the citizens elect their govt so they get to live with the consequences. Its certainly a beautiful stretch of our country.

If Ohio has too many regulations, is that is a sign of too much govt? Sounds like it. Why would the citizens vote for those? or why not repeal them? Doesn't really matter if its credited to the Ds or Rs. Its the citizens vs the Govt. The current fed govt is calling all the Money THEIR money. Its YOUR money. You earned it. Our Federal govt was founded based on LIMITED govt. What happened? We, the citizens, were not vigilant.

I saw the open secrets web site, would you be surprised that companies are giving smaller donations to the party that is trying to shut them down, restrict them, make them into villans? I wonder why they give any to that party? In the end, the consumers pay those donations, so I hope we are happy with what we are getting. 

None of the above explain this steaming pile -
_A California car company that doesn't use any oil is the Republican parties worse nightmare. They want it to be a loser and will probably use government regulations to slow it down and cost them money if they are in charge._

However, no need any more. Its your opinion.

Solyndra was referenced as an example of a failed policy to try and jump start an industry that just isn't quite ready. 
(Here is a list of 30+ of them http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/ read carefully, the amounts listed are estimated, not final losses) 
When solar panels are inexpensive enough to the normal consumer, you won't be able to stop them from buying them. I think the govt subsidies screw the market and are keeping the price high today. (My opinion) 
Same with electric cars. 
The price point is different for every family on these new technologies. So some people will adopt at a higher price because they get a bigger pay off. Tesla vs Leaf? 

But its back to the same question : If these technologies are such fantastic investments, WHY DOES THE GOVT FEEL THE NEED TO SUBSIDIZE THEM? 
If we could get "free" energy from the wind or sun and it was even close to cost effective, nobody could stop the flood. My electric bills are about 55% energy generation and 30% transmission line delivery and 15% taxes and govt subsidies. 
So these alternatives can be up to about 80% more than my current generation fees and I'd still break even. But they just can't deliver. 

Yet :^) Have a good week, enough time on this thread.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Caps18 said:


> What about it is questionable? Romney said it and repeated it a few times. A California car company that doesn't use any oil is the Republican parties worse nightmare. They want it to be a loser and will probably use government regulations to slow it down and cost them money if they are in charge.


Where did you come up with this nonsense? What Republicans want is the government to get out of spending tax payers money for electric cars and solar panels. Though I think electric cars are all that, I don't want to buy you one anyone else one. If you want one go get one with your money, don't think I'm obligated to make the down payment for you.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Caps18 said:


> 1. You wouldn't just be electing Romney, but if Romney wins with 1 more electoral vote, it will be seen as a 'mandate' by the Right that they won and can pass whatever laws they want.


You mean, Romney might (gasp!) do what Obama did, saying "We won the election!" and shut the Dems out of meetings like Pelosi and Reid did to the Republicans - and then, when they STILL can't pass their legislation use an obscure provision for balancing small differences in bills to "reconcile" a $10 trillion dollar difference? 

Sorry to be the one to tell you - there has not been a more partisan government in U.S. history than the current one. Unless we continue the way we are going, any change will be for the better.


----------

