Don't Biatch Conservatives

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:47 pm

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.

Ohh, the Solyndra... How often do we get to hear that? There were plenty of investments that did turn out fine though. Two examples: Tesla and Solar City.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:01 pm

Skipjack wrote:Alright, the military then. That allone means hundreds of billions in taxes that have to come from somewhere.
The current tax situation (which is still unchanged) that has lowered the taxes for the rich and increase the tax burden on the middle class has done a good job at destroying the same in the past decades. I personally favor the middle class, as in contrast to the socialists and the conservatives, I do believe that the middle is what really carries a country (the socialists believe it is the lower/working class and the conservatives will tell you that it is the upper class).

No tax cuts are needed. No budget cuts are needed. Just hold spending at current levels and in 10 or 15 years the budget is balanced from natural growth.

The middle class is dependent on the investor class. Attacks on the investor class will hurt the middle.

But I get it. You want to make slaves of the rich. It may sell in Europe but in America we are very touchy about the slavery thing.

And re: the War Dept budget. There are still some of us who know the history of the 1930s who know that deterrence - expensive as it is - costs a lot less than a major war. Spending as much as all the other powers combined is signaling. I wouldn't care to send a different signal.

krenshala · Post by **krenshala** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:04 pm

And the non-DOD portion of the budget is larger than the DOD side.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:10 pm

Skipjack wrote:
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.
Ohh, the Solyndra... How often do we get to hear that? There were plenty of investments that did turn out fine though. Two examples: Tesla and Solar City.

Tesla is in the process of going belly up. Another half billion up in smoke.

http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/27/elon- ... -finances/

and Solar City?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-2 ... ation.html

Without government money they can't get private sector loans. That is an indicator.

So far it is 0 for 1 and two in doubt. Not a good record.

jnaujok · Post by **jnaujok** » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:25 pm

Skipjack wrote: Ohh, the Solyndra... How often do we get to hear that? There were plenty of investments that did turn out fine though. Two examples: Tesla and Solar City.

Uh, Tesla has yet to make a dime of profits - the Roadster, while a neat car, was a financial disaster. Added to that, Tesla was mostly built and run with money out of Elon Musk's pocket. The contribution they got was only to keep them firmly esconsed in California, rather than taking all that money to a business friendly state like Texas.

And Solar City isn't much different. Again, run by Elon, largely funded out of his pocket, and yet to turn a dime of profit.

So, your best example of the $90B in grants or loan guarantees that this administration has dumped out are two non-profitable companies.

And the statistics say that a total of 901 "Green Jobs" have been created with this money. I bet I could create more than one job for $10M a pop.

paperburn1 · Post by **paperburn1** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:20 am

Skipjack wrote:
No Skipjack. The people getting free care will still get free care. They get it for free because they relatively speaking have nothing. They still have nothing.

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...

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?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:32 am

paperburn1 wrote:
Skipjack wrote:
No Skipjack. The people getting free care will still get free care. They get it for free because they relatively speaking have nothing. They still have nothing.

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...
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?

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.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:25 am

Tesla is in the process of going belly up. Another half billion up in smoke.

Uhm, they just released the model S which is a huge success. They have full books for that one already. The roadster also sold very well. IIRC, they have been making profit since 2009...
So I dont know what you have been smoking!

And Solar City isn't much different. Again, run by Elon, largely funded out of his pocket, and yet to turn a dime of profit.

Has been profitable for a while as well, IIRC.

So, your best example of the $90B in grants or loan guarantees that this administration has dumped out are two non-profitable companies.

Again, been hanging out to much with Msimon smoking whatever he is, hu?
And these are only two that I could name from the top of my head.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:43 am

So I dont know what you have been smoking!

Some fine cigars my kids gave me for Father's Day.

SJ - I provided links. Could you do the same?

JohnFul · Post by **JohnFul** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:27 am

Skipjack said:

Ohh, the Solyndra... How often do we get to hear that? There were plenty of investments that did turn out fine though. Two examples: Tesla and Solar City.

Ha ha ha. SolarCity is the biggest joke in the bay area. I work for a Silicon Valley company, and hear it all the time.

Solyndra not only went bankrupt, but left a toxic waste cleanup site for the citizens of bankrupt California to pick up the tab. Meanwhile, Owebama's croney capitalist buds laughed all the way to the bank.

Tesla? Yup, they sold a whopping 1650 roadsters then canked the line. Maybe the S series will do better. With the roadster priced at an affordable $109,000, and the S series rumored to cost more, somehow I doubt it. Maybe it's just me, but ....

Maybe there is a future for these "alternatives", but need to do a lot better than the "examples" you provided to convince anyone other than the kleptocrat minions.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:29 am

I work for a Silicon Valley company, and hear it all the time.

I am sorry, but your silicon valley friends are badly informed.

Tesla? Yup, they sold a whopping 1650 roadsters then canked the line. Maybe the S series will do better. With the roadster priced at an affordable $109,000, and the S series rumored to cost more, somehow I doubt it.

Tesla sold all the roadsters they could produce, because they then ran out of the base Lotus Elise gliders that it is based on (2500 of them).
There will be a follow on to the roadster based on the S.
So they sold all the roadsters that they have been able to produce. I would call that a success.
There will be several model S variants with prices starting at 57,000 USD going all the way up to 105k.
Certainly a luxury car for early adopters and not a car for the masses.
Still sales are going wonderfully for them:

Tesla Motors reported 520 reservations for the Model S during the first week after the carmaker began accepting deposits online and at showrooms in California on March 26, 2009.[30] The very first Model S was reserved for Tesla investor Steve Jurvetson. Tesla required a US$5,000 deposit for a regular Model S and a US$40,000 deposit for the Signature Series Model S.[31] By mid December 2010, Tesla announced that the reservation count had passed 3,000,[32]6,500 by November 2011,[33] and 10,000 reservations by May 2012.[34]

The special edition Model S Signature model was sold out even before deliveries began in June 2012, and according to Tesla Motors the electric sedan is sold out through 2012. A car ordered in May 2012 would be delivered in early to mid 2013.[35][36] As of June 2012, the carmaker is manufacturing one Model S a day but expects to ramp up production capacity to 80 units a day by the end of 2012 [37] Tesla Motors announced that it expects to sell at least 5,000 units in 2012 and set a sales target of 20,000 units for 2013.[34][38]

And then of course it seems like they also have deals with others that consider following in their footsteps:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/01/merc ... ll-plus-e/

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:17 pm

So they sold all the roadsters that they have been able to produce. I would call that a success.

In the US we normally equate profit with success.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:01 pm

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?

Yeah, what a great mathematician you are.
There are several problems with this calculation:
1. These people already were using the healthcare system through emergency treatments, which got paid for by the government. Now they will have to contribute at least something for that.
2. These people are among those 600,000 bankruptcies every year due to health care costs. These bankruptcies have to be cought by someone.
3. These people are among those that will go and sue the doctors that treated them over some (neglectable or non existing invented) malpractice to get out of their health care cost.
All these things add up and cost the US government and the healthcare industry billions every year as well.
4. These numbers assume that the previously uninsured wont be paying any insurance at all.
5. I would like to see where that number is coming from. It seems too high to me. I think that most people pay less than that for health insurance. So by this number the system would already have collapsed and all the health insurance companies gone bankrupt.
In which case, I would have to wonder how anyone could seriously claim for the US system to be more efficient than the Austrian...

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:19 pm

In the US we normally equate profit with success.

Well in order to make profit, they have to sell cars. They obviously are selling cars, more cars than they can currently make...

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jul 01, 2012 5:20 pm

Skipjack 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?
Yeah, what a great mathematician you are.
There are several problems with this calculation:
1. These people already were using the healthcare system through emergency treatments, which got paid for by the government. Now they will have to contribute at least something for that.
2. These people are among those 600,000 bankruptcies every year due to health care costs. These bankruptcies have to be cought by someone.
3. These people are among those that will go and sue the doctors that treated them over some (neglectable or non existing invented) malpractice to get out of their health care cost.
All these things add up and cost the US government and the healthcare industry billions every year as well.
4. These numbers assume that the previously uninsured wont be paying any insurance at all.
5. I would like to see where that number is coming from. It seems too high to me. I think that most people pay less than that for health insurance. So by this number the system would already have collapsed and all the health insurance companies gone bankrupt.
In which case, I would have to wonder how anyone could seriously claim for the US system to be more efficient than the Austrian...

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.