|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 5:01:04 GMT -5
so why does obama keep throwing money at them? p.s. if companies like tesla could make a practical car at an affordable price perhaps they would be viable. but folks like you don't really care that they are able to stand on their own. you and your kind are content to use my tax money to subsidize losing ventures. how very nice of you. Obama keeps throwing money at the car companies because 1) Bush set it up that way and 2) they are an integral part of the American landscape and provide many Americans with jobs. Their failure would undoubtedly make our current economic crisis worse in the short term but I think we would be better off in the long term. Tesla is close to making an affordable, practical electric car. Their model S is $50k, seats 7, goes anywhere from 160 to 300 miles on a single 45 minute quick charge, and goes 0 to 60 in 5.4 seconds. If Tesla enjoyed the economies of scale that GM or Ford do, it would bring the price down dramatically and their cares would be within reach for the average American. www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyshowroom.php |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 28, 2009 6:29:00 GMT -5
[quote author=saunterelle board=currentissues thread=1293 post=15098 time=1240912864Obama keeps throwing money at the car companies because 1) Bush set it up that way and 2) they are an integral part of the American landscape and provide many Americans with jobs. Their failure would undoubtedly make our current economic crisis worse in the short term but I think we would be better off in the long term. Tesla is close to making an affordable, practical electric car. Their model S is $50k, seats 7, goes anywhere from 160 to 300 miles on a single 45 minute quick charge, and goes 0 to 60 in 5.4 seconds. If Tesla enjoyed the economies of scale that GM or Ford do, it would bring the price down dramatically and their cares would be within reach for the average American. www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyshowroom.php [/quote] So now you are saying that Barry is a stooge for Bush? I thought he was your hero. What is "dramatically?" $20K? $35K? "Within reach" is hardly the same as "affordable." Shit, now you can't keep it straight in a single post. Left wing lies. And where will we get the power to charge them up? We can't build nukes, we can't build dams. We can't build, wind, solar, coal, or anything else. If by some chance you and all the other empty headed tools let something be built, then likely you won't let the transmission lines go in because you are all afraid of the electric fields or some such crap. More lies from you. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 7:04:56 GMT -5
Bush gave the car companies a small bailout before he left office. This ensured that they would require more money (around this time) and it would be Obama's responsibility to make the tough decision.
Nuclear power is an option (as Obama has said all along) but the main difference will be making our energy systems much more efficient. For instance, we will have to pay more for energy during peak usage times and less during lulls. This, combined with smart appliances that use less and can be activated via our cell phones (i.e. turning on your home A/C on your way home instead of leaving it on all day) will help us become much smarter about how we use energy.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 28, 2009 7:36:46 GMT -5
BArry has said nukes are on the table. Hell, kids using yo-yos as generators would be on the table if someone suggested it. With him EVERYTHING is on the table. All for show. If you have bothered to read what he has said about nukes, it is clear that they would be so tightly regulated that none could be built. Yeah, tell us more lies for your master.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 10:42:33 GMT -5
Obama has stated that if a safe way to dispose of spent fuel rods is found, he's all for nuclear power.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 28, 2009 11:39:14 GMT -5
Obama has stated that if a safe way to dispose of spent fuel rods is found, he's all for nuclear power. And, if you read what he has said on the subject, there is no safe way. So, even though nukes are "on the table" none will be built. Or even considered. More vomit from him that you willingly lap up, then beg for more. |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 11:46:00 GMT -5
so why does obama keep throwing money at them? p.s. if companies like tesla could make a practical car at an affordable price perhaps they would be viable. but folks like you don't really care that they are able to stand on their own. you and your kind are content to use my tax money to subsidize losing ventures. how very nice of you. Obama keeps throwing money at the car companies because 1) Bush set it up that way and 2) they are an integral part of the American landscape and provide many Americans with jobs. Their failure would undoubtedly make our current economic crisis worse in the short term but I think we would be better off in the long term. Tesla is close to making an affordable, practical electric car. Their model S is $50k, seats 7, goes anywhere from 160 to 300 miles on a single 45 minute quick charge, and goes 0 to 60 in 5.4 seconds. If Tesla enjoyed the economies of scale that GM or Ford do, it would bring the price down dramatically and their cares would be within reach for the average American. www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyshowroom.php Spin, spin, spin... Just like a leftist neocommunist. To bad you do not tell the truth. Here is one of your vaunted sources on the subject. A source that loves Obamunism. Obama: Auto Bailout 'Necessary'December 19, 2008 4:17 PM ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: In his fifth Chicago press conference in as many days, President-elect Obama addressed the auto bailout by the White House this morning in his opening remarks, calling the move "necessary" to avoid devastating consequences to the economy. "With the short-term assistance provided by this package, the auto companies must bring all their stakeholders together, including labor, dealers, creditors and suppliers, to make the hard choices necessary to achieve long-term viability," Obama said. "The auto companies must not squander this chance to reform bad management practices and begin the long-term restructuring that is absolutely necessary to save this critical industry and the millions of American jobs that depend on it, while also creating the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow." |
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 11:52:22 GMT -5
It's actually quite funny to read saunterelle's post, in light of something I heard this morning. You see, saunterelle is a registered Democrat, but he is not a liberal, he is a leftist or neocommunist. He does not believe in an alternate opinion at all, nor does he want to hear one. He is staunchly a statest, or someone who wants the government to make everything "fair." To bad his way will lead to dystopia, the antithesis of his desires.
The real funny thing is that the real liberals are now all considered conservative.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Apr 28, 2009 12:50:59 GMT -5
This is what happens when you try to "save" companies that were bound to fail. They were trying to stuff bloated, high-profit SUVs down our throats when they should have been building for the future (hybrids, electrics, and alternative fuel cars). If these companies were allowed to fail, new car companies like Tesla Motors and other would come to the forefront to provide the cars we need. Instead, we have to drag these old, sluggish companies kicking and screaming into the future.
Saunterelle, see my post, "More Creeping Socialism," under US and World Politics. You may change your mind about your support for President Obama when you see that the takeover of GM was not about preserving American industry, but all about handing control of the company over to the auto workers union. How does that make you feel? |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 15:48:28 GMT -5
In what way is he handing control to the auto worker's union? They have taken severe pay cuts and just as many concessions as the company execs.
|
|
|
|
Post by capttankona on Apr 28, 2009 16:07:07 GMT -5
I notice you have not addressed my refutiation of your assertion that Obama is only helping the Auto Industry because George W. Bush set us on this path. Funny how you do such things when you are presented with factual evidence that shows you are generally full of Bovine Scat.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Apr 28, 2009 16:09:20 GMT -5
I notice you have not addressed my refutiation of your assertion that Obama is only helping the Auto Industry because George W. Bush set us on this path. Funny how you do such things when you are presented with factual evidence that shows you are generally full of Bovine Scat. What is there to refute? Is absolutely is "necessary to avoid devastating consequences to the economy." I never said it wasn't. |
|
