• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tesla share crash amid Republican bid to kill off electric car tax break

Carjosse said:
But it relies hevaily on defense contracts which quite often are heavily inflated.
Click to expand...

That isn't the same thing as cash subsidies like Tesla is getting.
 
Casca XV said:
A tax break is letting people and companies keep more of their own money. A subsidy is the Govt giving a person or company a check. Your source is dishonestly conflating the two.
Click to expand...

A tax break for an individual, sure. An exclusive break for an industry or company, not so sure. Protectionist tax policy must be considered subsidy.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Manhattan Project.
Click to expand...

The Manhattan Project was a military research project to build a weapon.

Tesla is owned by a Billionaire Business man who is using Subsidies and dis-honest tax breaks to prop-up and profit form an inferior product. This actually retards innovation by reducing the necessity to improve.
 
Casca XV said:
The Manhattan Project was a military research project to build a weapon.

Tesla is owned by a Billionaire Business man who is using Subsidies and dis-honest tax breaks to prop-up and profit form an inferior product. This actually retards innovation by reducing the necessity to improve.
Click to expand...

LOL.. You mean like farm subsidies? Or Oil companies subsidies?

Anyway your statement that no innovation comes from the government if it has to be 'propped' up by the government was what I was replaying to. Many innovations come from the government AND government money. The Manhattan project and the many, MANY innovations from NASA and the many private companies who worked with NASA being the best examples.
 
ecofarm said:
A tax break for an individual, sure. An exclusive break for an industry or company, not so sure. Protectionist tax policy must be considered subsidy.
Click to expand...

Business Leaders look as taxes as a business expense. Reduce that business expense and they will hire more people and expand. The economy improves and tax revenue increases, JFK, Reagan and a half dozen other presidents proved it.

The US currently has such a high business tax rate that American businesses are at a disadvantage to the rest of the world. What is called "Protectionist tax policy" is actually more accurately called "Leveling the playing field."
 
Casca XV said:
it's not innovation if the Govt has to prop it up.
Click to expand...


First point innovation has nothing to do with profitability and who funds it. Second companies are generally not rewarded for being innovative because new technologies often don't become profitable - if they ever do - on a timeline that makes investors happy.
 
apdst said:
I'll never celebrate any private business going tits up. However, Tesla obviously can't stand on it's own feet. It's unjust to prop up technology that can't survive on it's own merits. Not only does it rip off the tax payer, it's an injustice to the people who purchase these products.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/02/tesla_share_price_drop_tax_break/
Click to expand...

faithful_servant said:
We need workable, profitable products, not ones that can only be produced with massive gov't intervention. If a company can't stand on it's own, let it fail. Yes, that means that we shouldn't have bailed out Chrysler, GM or any of the banks the gov't propped up.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The green technology solution that's going to have a real market impact and significantly move the needle is going to be the one that doesn't need government life support. As we have seen, government life support lasts for only so long, and when it is withdrawn, as it must, the impact of the green technology evaporates. We've seen this with the wind farms, many now abandoned due to this very pattern.
 
The same people who hate Muslims and that we are in the Middle East spending trillions propping up those same governments that support terrorists. Are in many cases the same people who are against us developing alternatives to ME oil that will get us out of the ME AND SAVE us trillions by us telling them to stick their oil.

Weird.
 
Carjosse said:
Why would we ever need innovation?
Click to expand...

we need innovation greatly, we just don't always need the government to mandate it and provide fodder from the public trough
 
I found the conference call the other day alarming: "I sleep at the factory a lot of nights, trying to do what I can to help, some days you might see me on the line trying to figure out what a robots glitch is (paraphrased)" as if this is what the leader is for. I saw a bunch of people cheering this on "He is with his troops, a real leader this one is...INSPIRING! (paraphrased)" but I am not feeling it.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
LOL.. You mean like farm subsidies? Or Oil companies subsidies?

Anyway your statement that no innovation comes from the government if it has to be 'propped' up by the government was what I was replaying to. Many innovations come from the government AND government money. The Manhattan project and the many, MANY innovations from NASA and the many private companies who worked with NASA being the best examples.
Click to expand...

A subsidy is receiving a check form the Govt. No private for profit company should ever receive a subsidy. Letting them keep more of their own money with tax breaks is a different story.

When there is no private industry to satisfy a need, Govt funded programs like NASA and the Manhattan Project are necessary.

Govt Bureaucrats are not what create the innovations in those projects. The Govt Employees and Contractors who do create the innovations (unless they are illicitly profiting form its inefficiency) hate the Govt Bureaucracies even more than most other people. Robert Oppenheimer despised the Govt Bureaucracy.


The innovators in NASA are mostly private contractors. If the Govt Bureaucrats who manage NASA operated with the same lean efficiency that most private companies have to, we would be colonizing other planets by now or at least ten times further along in space travel.

Just before Henry Ford there were others who tried and failed to invent and manufacture automobiles the way he did. If one of them had been artificially propped up by Govt, the way Tesla is being propped up today. Ford most likely would have been blocked and we would probably be driving cars equivalent to about the 1930s.

Obama gave Solyndra a half a billion dollars. Thinking the were outside normal economic market forces they made bad decisions and went bankrupt. That is the norm not the exception of what happens when Govt gets involved in industry and innovation.
 
Last edited:
SenorXm/Sirius said:
The same people who hate Muslims and that we are in the Middle East spending trillions propping up those same governments that support terrorists. Are in many cases the same people who are against us developing alternatives to ME oil that will get us out of the ME AND SAVE us trillions by us telling them to stick their oil.

Weird.
Click to expand...

Well I do hate Terrorists but not Muslims. It's awfully Racist and Ignorant of you to automatically conflate Terrorists with Muslims.

I would love to see alternatives to oil. It's just that Govt picking the winners and losers in it's innovation will insure it never happens, or happens decades later than it should.

See #39
 
Casca XV said:
Well I do hate Terrorists but not Muslims. It's awfully Racist and Ignorant of you to automatically conflate Terrorists with Muslims.

I would love to see alternatives to oil. It's just that Govt picking the winners and losers in it's innovation will insure it never happens, or happens decades later than it should.

See #39
Click to expand...

Please don't change what I said to further your own blind cult like alligence to Trump and the GOP. I SAID ME governments that SUPPORT terrorists. I didn't say all Muslims are terrorists.

Take your lemming like blind alligence elsewhere.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Please don't change what I said to further your own blind cult like alligence to Trump and the GOP. I SAID ME governments that SUPPORT terrorists. I didn't say all Muslims are terrorists.

Take your lemming like blind alligence elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Knock it off, You tried to take a cheap shot and it backfired. You are losing a debate so you did the favorite Leftist tacit of attributing Hate to your opponents motives.

I'm supporting the first President in 30 years who is actually reducing the power of Govt, there by his own power. That is hardly blind allegiance.
 
apdst said:
I'll never celebrate any private business going tits up. However, Tesla obviously can't stand on it's own feet. It's unjust to prop up technology that can't survive on it's own merits. Not only does it rip off the tax payer, it's an injustice to the people who purchase these products.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/02/tesla_share_price_drop_tax_break/
Click to expand...


This company is a long way from going out of business. It has a market cap of 50 billion, more than Ford. Stock is down largely because it is having problems producing the new mass market car. People who are paying 80-100K for a Tesla will largely still buy it, with or without the tax credit.
 
Casca XV said:
Knock it off, You tried to take a cheap shot and it backfired. You are losing a debate so you did the favorite Leftist tacit of attributing Hate to your opponents motives.

I'm supporting the first President in 30 years who is actually reducing the power of Govt, there by his own power. That is hardly blind allegiance.
Click to expand...

The guy who just said he wishes he could control the DOJ and FBI so he could go after his political opponents wants to reduce the power of the government?

LOL. Cult like indeed.
 
Casca XV said:
A tax break is letting people and companies keep more of their own money. A subsidy is the Govt giving a person or company a check. Your source is dishonestly conflating the two.
Click to expand...

Both scenarios involve the government forking funds over to the corporation versus the same funds ending up in the treasury. Both scenarios, therefore are equivalent and my source therefore is not being deceptive.
 
Carjosse said:
But it relies hevaily on defense contracts which quite often are heavily inflated.
Click to expand...

This is the problem when you have bureaucrats who are spending money that isn't theirs. They really don't care.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Are you perhaps referring to the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend maintaining a naval presence in and around the Persian Gulf to ensure the flow of Big Oil's tankers?
Click to expand...

That is exactly what the US Navy was created for. To protect the sea lanes from aggressors to free trade.

Geeeees.
 
lurchadams said:
You really should do some research before you post, my friend.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...winners-in-each-state/?utm_term=.49a1ce192e45
Click to expand...

When journalists and liberals stop calling everything they can a "subsidy," and use correct word meanings, maybe we will listen. As it stands now, there is no credibility of calling something a subsidy, because "words have meaning," and you guys constantly abuse the meanings for intentional dishonesty, or because of ignorance.

To pay a manufacturer to stay in a "state of readiness" is not a subsidy. It is an evil necessity.

To pay manufacturers development money to design things they otherwise wouldn't, is not a subsidy.

Subsidies have a specific meaning. You lefties need to learn that "words have meaning."
 
cuban smokes said:
The US Constitution has not been followed by The US for many, many decades; Lincoln was one of the worst abusers ....................
Click to expand...

Nice deflection. But you yourself make many inane threads on here in regards to presidents making decisions outside of the Constitution.

So what is it with you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom