And how will they be able to make more? How much more capital will that require?Skipjack wrote:Well in order to make profit, they have to sell cars. They obviously are selling cars, more cars than they can currently make...In the US we normally equate profit with success.
Don't Biatch Conservatives
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I agree that some regulations are complete nonsense like the fact that insurance companies cant compete across state lines, or the still existing tie to the employer.Every estimate of one of these social bills has been off by a factor of at least 5. And for every shout about gains by some I have seen a cry about losses by others. Bankruptcies looming.
A free market in medical care would solve a lot of the problems. Lasik is declining in costs while other medical costs are rising. Any time you have a third party payer you decouple the incentives from the market. Insurance or government.
The original plan was trying to do a few more things in this regard but was acutally overruled by the republicans. In fact the current implementation is very close to the original plan presented by the republicans a few years ago. I guess that they did not expect Obama to sign it. Him being pragmatic did so and now they are crying and whining about it...
They have preorders/deposits for 10,000 models S sedans right now. That means a guesstimated 700 million in sales revenue for the next 12 months (taking slightly less than the average price for the S across all models ). So I think they will be doing just fine.And how will they be able to make more? How much more capital will that require?
Well, the people don't like it and will have a chance to express themselves in November. Roughly 120 days from now.In fact the current implementation is very close to the original plan presented by the republicans a few years ago.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
What about that part of the "investment pool" that goes into buying government bonds, though?MSimon wrote:You dry up the investment pool and you do not get investment.
It also assumes they are currently costing nothing at all, and that healthcare has no positive economic effect whatsoever. Not saying you're wrong on the principle, but an argument with obvious flaws doesn't help your cause.MSimon wrote:And that assumes the population unserved is average risk. If they are high risk it will be more. What the government "hopes" is that the risk is way below average. But that is at odds with insuring those with preexisting conditions.paperburn1 wrote:Currently, the average person consumes $5,000 per year in health care. By simple math, newly insuring 60 million people will cost taxpayers $300 billion annually, a far higher number than many policymakers admit. where do we get that money from?Skipjack wrote:
You mean those that are on medicaid right now?
Those maybe. I am talking about the ones that previously had no healthcare at all. You know those 40 million...
Their plan to ramp up Model S production (which only just started recently) appears to be reasonable, and if their financial reports are accurate then they're not running out of cash any time soon.MSimon wrote:And how will they be able to make more? How much more capital will that require?Skipjack wrote:Well in order to make profit, they have to sell cars. They obviously are selling cars, more cars than they can currently make...In the US we normally equate profit with success.
Sure profit is the main measure of success, but given that the company has only just started to reap the rewards of several hundred million dollars in investments and several years of R&D, there is simply no way of predicting whether the venture will ultimately be profitable. Judging by TSLA's share price since the IPO it seems that investors are somewhat optimistic. They may be wrong. Only time will tell.
Well looky here:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -new-taxes
But you are right. The government has been so good at directing investment that we should turn our whole economy over to them. Within a few years we will all be rich.
BTW SJ - the misinformed voters will be out in force in Nov. I look forward to it. I'm doing my best to bring them out:
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/06/the- ... evolution/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -new-taxes
But you are right. The government has been so good at directing investment that we should turn our whole economy over to them. Within a few years we will all be rich.
BTW SJ - the misinformed voters will be out in force in Nov. I look forward to it. I'm doing my best to bring them out:
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/06/the- ... evolution/
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
If Spain, or Italy, or Greece falls before the election it bodes ill for Obama.
I hope SJ that you are doing your best to see that your government (and by extension you) papers over the problem until at least the end of November. Headlines like "The Fall of XXX Imminent" would be real bad for the guy you prefer. Do your part. Lobby your government.
I hope SJ that you are doing your best to see that your government (and by extension you) papers over the problem until at least the end of November. Headlines like "The Fall of XXX Imminent" would be real bad for the guy you prefer. Do your part. Lobby your government.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I love how you completely put Tesla motors "success" (success as in maybe, in the future, if they can keep a car-line running for three years) entirely in the pocket of Obumbler when I pointed out that the *only* reason they got the money was to pin them in California. Musk was planning to move Tesla motors to Texas, and the Administration stepped in and paid them to stay in California. The money from the grant was to make up the difference in taxes, regulation, and over-sized wages in California. It had nothing to do with the product itself.Skipjack wrote:They have preorders/deposits for 10,000 models S sedans right now. That means a guesstimated 700 million in sales revenue for the next 12 months (taking slightly less than the average price for the S across all models ). So I think they will be doing just fine.And how will they be able to make more? How much more capital will that require?
So even if you want to claim that Tesla is a success story, then it's a success story in spite of the money, not because of it.
Why do you think Elon Musk wants to move his SpaceX launch center to Texas? It's so he can stealthily move construction of the rockets out of the insanely bad business climate of California -- the Liberal Paradise.
Ohh so many half truths!
The Individual Mandate Tax only affects those without insurance that refuse to get insurance. Call it a tax if you choose to do so, but I think that this will only affect a very small part of the population.
From what I understand there currently is no legal basis for enforcing this either.
The dramatically titled "Medicine Cabinet Tax" only affects drugs purchased WITHOUT a prescription and only from reimbursement through certain kinds of tax advantaged saving accounts. I cant say that I am in favor of this one, but it is not as dramatic as stated in the article.
The FSA cap sounds really stupid, indeed. One has to admit though that in return people get more tax credits for health insurance cost. Also the age limit for insuring children with the parents has been raised. There are also improvements to the cost of student loans.
It is not the same, but it does even things out a little.
Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle:
Sounds really bad on paper, but will be more than outweighed by the fact that insurers wont have annual spending caps, lifetime dollar limits anymore, thus reducing the cost for health care imposed on families from that end. I think this will come out as a zero sum game, probably even a positive for families in the end. It is hard to tell though.
Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike
I dont think that this will affect that many people. It only affects those that make early, non medical related withdrawals from a saving account intended (and thus lower taxed) for medical expenses.
The indoor tanning tax of 10% is really not that big of a deal. Indoor tanning is a health risk, anyway. I think it is a rather curious tax, but does not get me upset. There are other things that annoy me more.
The Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax is rather strange as well and I was a bit puzzled by this too. It is not really that big of a deal though.
It is on plans that cost more than 10,000 USD a year for an individual, which will probably not affect that many people. If you are in a high risk job, the limit is actually much higher too. So again, this will affect people with very expensive insurance policies in low risk jobs.
Also it will be in part offset by the much better general coverage required from insurers now anyway. So a lower cost insurance might actually get you the same coverage now, rendering the Cadillac plans more or less obsolete anyway.
Ohhh, please!I love how you completely put Tesla motors "success" (success as in maybe, in the future, if they can keep a car-line running for three years) entirely in the pocket of Obumbler when I pointed out that the *only* reason they got the money was to pin them in California. Musk was planning to move Tesla motors to Texas, and the Administration stepped in and paid them to stay in California. The money from the grant was to make up the difference in taxes, regulation, and over-sized wages in California. It had nothing to do with the product itself.
So even if you want to claim that Tesla is a success story, then it's a success story in spite of the money, not because of it.
So many half truths there, I dont even know where to start.
1. I was simply responding to those that put the failure of Solyndra completely on Obama. So it is either or... You can decide. Either it is all Obamas fault, or none of it is.
I dont know where you are getting that information from, but it is absolutely not true.Musk was planning to move Tesla motors to Texas, and the Administration stepped in and paid them to stay in California.
Oh please.Why do you think Elon Musk wants to move his SpaceX launch center to Texas? It's so he can stealthily move construction of the rockets out of the insanely bad business climate of California -- the Liberal Paradise.
Elon Musk has had an engine test facility in Texas for a long time.
He is planning to launch his rockets from Texas instead of Florida to give him more opportunity for launch windows. Also some suspect that the launch site is exactly the right distance west of the cape to let his future reusable first stages land in KSC after a launch from Brownsville, Tx.
This is of course speculation.
It is not speculation however that the main facility and assembly will stay in California.
Ah. Yes. Only those without insurance. And what happens when businesses all over the country decide that a $2,000 a year tax is cheaper than $5,000 a year insurance?
What happens when 20 or 30 states opt out (two so far)?
What happens when seniors start in on their welfare being cut to subsidize others?
I dunno. I look forward to November though.
What happens when 20 or 30 states opt out (two so far)?
What happens when seniors start in on their welfare being cut to subsidize others?
I dunno. I look forward to November though.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
palladin9479
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am
Completely and utterly not true.MSimon wrote:For a very sound reason. In his first two years when he had the votes he was afraid it would further tank the economy - which it would have. You dry up the investment pool and you do not get investment. Unless you count Solyndra. Now with the House in the hands of the Rs he isn't going to get a tax bill through.Also and just in case some people here actually think that Obama is taxing the rich more. He actually has not undone the Bush tax cuts for the very rich. Just saying.
But his attacks on the rich - even though rhetorical - have dried up campaign donations from that sector of the economy.
The liberals were demanding he remove the Bush tax cuts (rather tax loopholes and exemptions). Bush rewarded those who put him in power very well, those entities did not want to see their rewards be taken away. Obama didn't push the remove the cuts as a peace offering to the GOP, thus was during his early naive "lets work together" time. He hadn't realized yet that the GOP had absolutely zero plan to support anything with Obama's name on it. He hadn't realized that they were ready and willing to sabotage the country for political purposes. There have been several other issues that the liberals have demanding he fix "their way" that he's refused on. The liberals are not happy with Obama right now, he's not "liberal enough" for them.
About all this horse hocky on "slavery". In a sense EVERYONE is a slave to someone else as the moment one person makes a choice that inhibits the choice of another, that person has enslaved the other. So until you have a government rounding up people, putting them in iron chains and using whips to force them to mine rocks, you don't have slavery. To attempt to use that as a point of debate only weakens your position.
Large governments tend to be a bad thing, yet how do we measure government size? By cost, by number of departments or by number of people employed? Cost is relative to the wealth of those within it. The government of Greece is miniscule compared to the government of the USA, yet it's too large for it's own citizens. Number of people employed should be the more appropriate term to determine government size, and in that sense the US government is not that large.
What needs to happen isn't "reduction" in government size but reduction in wasted money coupled with better distribution of tax income. Right now the middle class is bearing the brunt of the tax, the class that most of the US posters here should be part of. The poor class has nothing to give, you can't tax a stone. This leaves only the upper class (7+ figure yearly income) remaining and they've paid for the privilege of not paying taxes. That needs to come to a full stop.
I fully believe in reducing the percentage tax rate, I also fully believe in closing tax loop holes, all of them. There is no reason for an entire library's worth of books on the tax code.
What's really amusing, and a good case study, is that what would be best for the posters here is to support removing tax loopholes for the upper class. Yet their faith to their political party is such that they refuse to see that, even when that faith itself is to the very same people who stand to gain from those loopholes being kept open. Then those faithful have the gall to rant about .. slavery of all things, something they've willingly entered into via their blind faith. The only motivator more powerful then greed is human faith. Kinda funny to see a religion being made out of political views.
Ah. Well then we tax the rich into poverty that will fix it. No more million dollar ball players.
Let the government decide where to invest. They are smarter than anyone else. And more effective too. They have enough guns to make anything work.
Let the government decide where to invest. They are smarter than anyone else. And more effective too. They have enough guns to make anything work.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Ohhh, come on now. Nobody is taxing the rich into poverty. They are still paying way less taxes now than they did before Reagan, who gave them large tax cuts. There are also lots of loop holes for the very rich to avoid paying taxes. The middle class is what is carrying the country. They need a tax releave more than the rich.Ah. Well then we tax the rich into poverty that will fix it.