• 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

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.

They don't care about honesty. Only their agenda. What they don't realize though, that in destroying their reputation with intelligent people, they become obscure. That even times they have a valid point, they will be ignored.
 
Well this will not ruin Tesla but the government should be encouraging technological innovation even if temporarily unprofitable to do so.

If it works, the banks will line up like carpet baggers.

It shouldn't be a Gov't argument entirely.
 
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.

LOL...

Yep, your agenda and bias is noted.
 
As a fiscal conservative, I dislike all forms of corporate welfare, regardless of who's political ideology that corporate welfare serves. When government actively insinuates itself into the free enterprise market, it seldom if ever works out well. We have many examples here in Canada. I seem to recall where the Obama administration wasted hundreds of $millions on a solar panel enterprise, conveniently run by an Obama campaign bundler, that went belly up in a year or so.

Face it, the buying public isn't interested in paying grossly higher prices for everyday products and services solely for the purpose of making environmentalists happy. Make a good product, make it competitive in both price and service to what already exists, and the public will buy into it. Try to force it on the public and the public will resist. Electric cars are expensive to buy and to run, they are limited in their range, and when the battery goes, the cost of replacement is excessive. Only an idiot with too much money and no need for a real car would ever consider buying one, even with the government assistance.
 
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?


maybe OUR government should get its' **** together & follow The Constitution? ...........

what it wit yous?
 
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."

Unfortunately we can't look to our conservative brothers and sisters who are always looking for ways to cheat and lie and preach hatred to win elections and tout how fiscally conservative they all are while at the same time further cutting off upward mobility to working folk while giving away $ to wealthy Americans.

Yes, words have meaning, like "death panels", "death taxes", "job creators", etc. If there is any hope to put this nation back together we need responsible Democrats to take back control.

It's conservatives that lack any credibility my friend, especially the nut job at the top who as adopted the Republican party.
 
maybe OUR government should get its' **** together & follow The Constitution? ...........

what it wit yous?

That was not in spirit of the post I replied to.

The constitution is written to maintain a Navy and did not place 2 year limits on it like the army. I suppose you would like to see Iran take control of the Gulf?
 
Well this will not ruin Tesla but the government should be encouraging technological innovation even if temporarily unprofitable to do so.

Encouraging - sure, but not paying for. Pass laws that help innovation and avoid regulations that stifle it, but we shouldn't be paying for it.
 
That was not in spirit of the post I replied to.

The constitution is written to maintain a Navy and did not place 2 year limits on it like the army. I suppose you would like to see Iran take control of the Gulf?

Sure ............ NOT ................ U C, that's the problem with MY ****ing government; they have tried to control EVERYTHING but they have FAILED to properly maintain America.

The assholes running the asylum cannot see the forest for the trees ....................
 
Encouraging - sure, but not paying for. Pass laws that help innovation and avoid regulations that stifle it, but we shouldn't be paying for it.

But... but... but...

If they do something like give tax breaks for money used in research and development, the libs will call it a subsidy!
 
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."


Yes, words have meanings. You could start with the definition of 'subsidy'.


:a grant or gift of money: such as
a :a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
b :money granted by one state to another
c :a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

You describe subsidies you agree with and then say that they aren't subsides.
 
But... but... but...

If they do something like give tax breaks for money used in research and development, the libs will call it a subsidy!

Because they are subsidies. I don't know how you have confused the definition, but it's not on us.

One of the big ones are roads. Government spending on roads is a subsidy to automobiles, indirectly. Perhaps that kind of indirect subsidy is what you are referring to?
 
Because they are subsidies. I don't know how you have confused the definition, but it's not on us.

One of the big ones are roads. Government spending on roads is a subsidy to automobiles, indirectly. Perhaps that kind of indirect subsidy is what you are referring to?

LOL...

I wonder if you even realize what you just agreed to?
 
Well this will not ruin Tesla but the government should be encouraging technological innovation even if temporarily unprofitable to do so.

Encouraging doesn't mean paying for it. There are many wealthy in Hollywood and Tech valley. Let them pit their money where their mouth is.
 
Back
Top Bottom