Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't grow an economy with bankrupt companies and lost loan money.
Your argument would make sense if all government loans went to companies which ended up bankrupt, but since that is not true, your argument rings hollow and partisan.
So, the government should deny all subsidies for private business - such as oil and gas, hydro-electric power, and wind and solar energy development? Would such business exist without government involvement?
The simple answer, under the current financial climate is YES.
IF, in another financial world, where there is not a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit annually, and 17 Trillion in accumulated misappropration of funds, and the US Treasury found a surpluse of funds sitting idle, when it could be invested properly to facilitate a profit, reduce tax burdens, and create job and economic growth that benefitted those to whom the funds were taken, THEN AND ONLY THEN would such ventures be justifiable. But that's not the real world that we live in.
Fisker Automotive is one of the many and most prevalent examples of crony capitalism meeting facsim and socialism where profits are privatized and costs are socialized. And those private profiteers use their influence to convince our government to give them OUR money for their's, not our benefit.
The Fisker Karma, designed by former Aston Martin official Henrik Fisker, was one of the most georgous vehicles you will ever see ..... think 4 door Corvette, only better looking. The car came at a price tag of over $100,000 ... not your typical family sedan, nor a car mot people could afford to own. Basically a super luxury sportscar for the higher income folks to announce, "I'm wealthy and green too".
Secondly, the technology was substandard for the label of a hybrid fuel saving vehicle with an effective mpg rating similar to a V8 powered Corvette. So the "go green" stuff flies right out the window. What's left, if the average person can't afford it, and it offeres no better fuel economy and enronmental advantage than a gas guzzling V8 that liberals believe are causing polar bears to drown ... the only thing left is the "jobs" issue.
The estimate by fisker was 5,000 new jobs (2,000 direct fisker jobs, and 3,000 jobs from supporting suppliers). The initial commitment to fisker was for $600,000,000 ... of whic $190,000,000 was doled out. At the 600 Million figure, that's $138,000 per job created. We'd be better off giving those 5,000 supposed new job recipients $35,000 per year gift for 4 years, rather than lining the pockets of luxury car manufacturing executives who only managed to produce 2,500 Fisker Karmas for the $190,000,000 lost venture capital, which equates to the American tax payer buying all 2500 hundred Karmas produced, at $76,000 per car, that none of us got a chance to drive, and most of us have never actually seen one in person.
And THIS is what you are defending? You don't have a leg to stand on!!!
There's nothing wrong with government funding of private business. Many small businesses start with an SBA government insured loan. Eliminating such funding would have a stifling effect on our economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
Government loans have been made for many decades, and in every administration. Just because billions are lost in bankruptcy every year is not sufficient reason to do away with them. It is in the national interest - particularly now - to grow the economy; and to do that you need grist for the mill.
there is plenty wrong with government funding of private business, when the government isnt taskong due diligence in approving any loans in a manner similar to what private banks do. take solyndra for instance, they applied for government loans when bush was president, but they were never approved because the bush administration took the time to investigate the company, as a proper bank would, and when red flags started popping up about solyndra, the loans were rejected. and the obama administration knew this, and yet they approved the loans anyway. the result was that the government lost over $500,000,000 on that loan, as well as several hundred million more on 11 other green energy companies that also went bankrupt, and again had all the red flags that solyndra had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
Bankruptcy is part and parcel with every business venture. One need only look to the GM and Chrysler Chapter 11 business reorganizations to see this. Even successful businesses often get reorganized through bankruptcy proceedings - that's what the bankruptcy law is about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
No, and for good reason. In the GM case, the government was granted a priority lien for administrative expense (which security the government would not have but for the bankruptcy filing); and a major equity share in the reorganized debtor. In almost every reorganization proceeding, the interests of equity security holders are either subordinated or extinguished (viz. equitable interests do not have priority over legal interests of creditors). The bankruptcy laws operate to balance the interests of debtors, creditors, equity holders, unions, government units and other parties in interest.
yeah, dont get me started on gm and chrysler, those companies were STOLEN by the obama administration with a prepackaged bankruptcy that violated just about every contract law on the books. what should have happened is that the courts should have overseen the bankruptcies of those companies, and the courts would have forced all kinds of changes in those companies, and in the union contracts, as it is no changes were made except that the bond and stock holders of both companies were screwed out of just about everything, as were the creditors of both companies, and the tax payers as well.
The simple answer, under the current financial climate is YES.
IF, in another financial world, where there is not a 1.5 Trillion dollar deficit annually, and 17 Trillion in accumulated misappropration of funds, and the US Treasury found a surpluse of funds sitting idle, when it could be invested properly to facilitate a profit, reduce tax burdens, and create job and economic growth that benefitted those to whom the funds were taken, THEN AND ONLY THEN would such ventures be justifiable. But that's not the real world that we live in.
Fisker Automotive is one of the many and most prevalent examples of crony capitalism meeting facsim and socialism where profits are privatized and costs are socialized. And those private profiteers use their influence to convince our government to give them OUR money for their's, not our benefit.
The Fisker Karma, designed by former Aston Martin official Henrik Fisker, was one of the most georgous vehicles you will ever see ..... think 4 door Corvette, only better looking. The car came at a price tag of over $100,000 ... not your typical family sedan, nor a car mot people could afford to own. Basically a super luxury sportscar for the higher income folks to announce, "I'm wealthy and green too".
Secondly, the technology was substandard for the label of a hybrid fuel saving vehicle with an effective mpg rating similar to a V8 powered Corvette. So the "go green" stuff flies right out the window. What's left, if the average person can't afford it, and it offeres no better fuel economy and enronmental advantage than a gas guzzling V8 that liberals believe are causing polar bears to drown ... the only thing left is the "jobs" issue.
The estimate by fisker was 5,000 new jobs (2,000 direct fisker jobs, and 3,000 jobs from supporting suppliers). The initial commitment to fisker was for $600,000,000 ... of whic $190,000,000 was doled out. At the 600 Million figure, that's $138,000 per job created. We'd be better off giving those 5,000 supposed new job recipients $35,000 per year gift for 4 years, rather than lining the pockets of luxury car manufacturing executives who only managed to produce 2,500 Fisker Karmas for the $190,000,000 lost venture capital, which equates to the American tax payer buying all 2500 hundred Karmas produced, at $76,000 per car, that none of us got a chance to drive, and most of us have never actually seen one in person.
And THIS is what you are defending? You don't have a leg to stand on!!!
not to mention that fisker was supposed to create the jobs here in the US, but they didnt.
Ok but at least invest in companies that will survive.
Why did the Energy Dept pick Soylandra over First Solar ?
First Solar had solid financials. Soylandra had "friends and family".
First Solar is still in business today and not doing too badly.
A lot of people lost money on Solyndra including the ultra conservative Walton family. You knew that I`m sure.
Your argument would make sense if all government loans went to companies which ended up bankrupt, but since that is not true, your argument rings hollow and partisan.
If you are going to become a venture capitalist then act as one.
What the Energy Dept did with all those billions was not sound business.
I already commented on SBA loans.
LOL at the "partisan" that bankrupt companies don't improve the economy ?
Why..do liberals think they do ?
A lot of people lost money on Solyndra including the ultra conservative Walton family. You knew that I`m sure.
And the USG restructured the loans so that both the Kaisers and Waltons received money back before anyone else.
And the bankruptcy judge gave them hundreds of millions in additional tax breaks because of it.
there is plenty wrong with government funding of private business, when the government isnt taskong due diligence in approving any loans in a manner similar to what private banks do. take solyndra for instance, they applied for government loans when bush was president, but they were never approved because the bush administration took the time to investigate the company, as a proper bank would, and when red flags started popping up about solyndra, the loans were rejected. and the obama administration knew this, and yet they approved the loans anyway. the result was that the government lost over $500,000,000 on that loan, as well as several hundred million more on 11 other green energy companies that also went bankrupt, and again had all the red flags that solyndra had.
False. Bush created the clean energy loan guarantee program, and had marked Solyndra as #1 deal to close before leaving the office, but he Energy Department's credit committee did not get it done in time. It was one of the unresolved issues on his list. He wanted to close the deal, but ran out of time.
I don't know who told you they saw red flags and rejected the loan, but it is pure BS.
OSI Systems had good numbers to start with.
They blossomed under government money and contracts.
I just think the push to go green was a higher priority than solid business numbers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
