[speechlesstx]

And you guys elected him. Another "green" company has failed Obama's social engineering scheme (how many does that make now). Ener1, which received $118.5 million of our taxpayer dollars to build batteries for electric vehicles, filed for bankruptcy today. Not only that, but they received the Obama kiss of death, he mentioned them in his campaign speec... SOTU address Tuesday:

President Obama touted the program in his State of the Union address this year.

“In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries,” he said.

And electric cars that catch fire, but I digress. Naturally, the administration defended the "investment" just as Obama defended the bailouts Tuesday - while saying “no bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts” out of the other side of his mouth.

What a dufus, and you guys elected him.

[tomder55]

Heck of a job there Obama! What a track record with these green energy bucket list givaways !
This is the same company the VP Biden praised last year as a success.
Vice President Joe Biden to visit battery maker in Greenfield

As for the Volt made by Government Motors ,dealers are now refusing delivery .
Some Chevy dealers rejecting further Volt allocations

Maybe they should rename the car to Chevy Roman Candle ;or
Obamacar ,or Vehicular Flambe .

The President touted GM as a successful comeback story in SOTU address . But the word is that GM was forcing dealers to carry 90 days of inventory in order to make the units sold from the factory look good. Most dealers were complaining because they had to pay for 3 times more units sitting on the lot then they used to and it was really hurting their bottom line.
Widening GM Truck Supply Reminiscent of 2008 ?Bad Habits?: Cars - Bloomberg

[speechlesstx]

Maybe they should rename the car to Chevy Roman Candle ;or Obamacar ,or Vehicular Flambe .

Priceless, tom.

The President touted GM as a successful comeback story in SOTU address . But the word is that GM was forcing dealers to carry 90 days of inventory in order to make the units sold from the factory look good. Most dealers were complaining because they had to pay for 3 times more units sitting on the lot then they used to and it was really hurting their bottom line.
Widening GM Truck Supply Reminiscent of 2008 ?Bad Habits?: Cars - Bloomberg

Everything Obama is an illusion, tom. How else does one congratulate himself on the job he did with the bailouts while slamming bailouts in the same speech?

[excon]

Hello Curmudgeons...

If a country is going to INVEST in NEW technology that will SAVE the country, you're going to have a few disappointments... If you don't understand this, listen to Romney... He does. I think he's MENTIONED a few failures he's had along the way to his success.

excon

[tomder55]

It is a joke .break even price on GM shares is $54.GM currently is at $24.72 a share.

The President in SOTU said that because of the bailout, GM is "back on top as the world's No. 1 automaker."

That is a clear distortion. Toyota took a big hit because of the phoney accelerator issue ,and the effects of the tsunami. But they are coming back rapidly . The truth is that GM and Chrysler are not competitive on the world market. I would not be holding shares in either .

The truth is that all the bailouts have been a disaster . AP reported that we will never recoup TARP despite the phoney claims that it was a net gain for the government.
Taxpayers owed $132.9 and may never get it back

[tomder55]

Hello Curmudgeons...

If a country is going to INVEST in NEW technology that will SAVE the country, you're gonna have a few disappointments... If you don't understand this, listen to Romney... He does. I think he's MENTIONED a few failures he's had along the way to his success.

excon

Is there a success story yet ? Spain invested heavily in alt energy technology ;and the President has more than once said he's modelling his plan after Spains.

But a study of the green energy initiative in Spain ,sourced with EU data , reveals that for every 4 jobs created in the green energy marketplace ;9 are lost... and consumers are strapped with both higher taxes ,and higher rates per use of energy. Electricity rates “necessarily skyrocketed” in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the experiment .
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090...-renewable.pdf
And even as Spain is taking steps to abandon it's failed experiment ,POTUS forges ahead despite the evidence.

[excon]

POTUS forges ahead despite the evidence.

Hello again, tom:

When you're investing in NEW technology, evidence of past failures isn't germane. As an entrepreneur, do you know how many times I was told I couldn't do what I eventually DID?

What you curmudgeons fail to see, is that we have NO choice BUT to seek a new source of energy... In case nobody told you, the world WILL run out of oil. If WE don't do it, the Chinese will, and that won't be good for us.

excon

[tomder55]

Maybe we will eventually run out .There are competing theories of that too.

And I have no doubt that technologies that natually evolve will one day replace carbon based sources. Back in the day ,the government did not take the shirt off the back of the taxpayer to invest in Edison's experiments . There was no urgency to replace whale oil lanterns .

But only after Edison ,an independent entrepreneur (without government funding),
Had success in developing a light bulb ,did the government invest in the infrastructure to bring electricity to the consumers.

[excon]

maybe we will eventually run out .There are competing theories of that too.

Hello again, tom:

Certainly, if you believe that we have a never ending source of oil, you'd think investing in new sources of energy would be wasteful.

I, however, don't subscribe to that notion.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I'm all for investing in new technologies. I'm against the federal government risking MY money, especially so a bunch of self-righteous liberals can pat themselves on the back for ruining my country.

[tomder55]

If we were to run out in 5 years there are known proven alternative that would bridge the gap to that unknown future that the President would have us "invest "in. In the real world a marketable idea doesn't get forced fed to the consumer through command and control .

In fact subsidies hurts consumers(and yes I mean that for the subsidies that are given to all energy companies ) .

You want government research ? Fine I can live with that .But you can't create an industry that is not viable just because you want it to be so.

[excon]

You want government research ? Fine I can live with that .But you can't create an industry that is not viable just because you want it to be so.

Hello again, tom:

Even if you want it to be so, you can't adjudge an industry to be "not viable" BEFORE you've invested in it,

excon

[tomder55]

That is a fine position for the private investor to take if they choose. To invest taxpayers money on a pipe dream is irresponsible.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

Even if you want it to be so, you can't adjudge an industry to be "not viable" BEFORE you've invested in it,

excon

Failed Obama investments in "green" companies so far:

Beacon Power
A123 Systems
GlobalWatt
Evergreen Solar
SpectraWatt
Solyndra
Ener1

Any more?

Betting taxpayer dollars is not just wrong, it's damn wrong.

[tomder55]

Is the battery going to supplant or replace the internal combustion engine? That's never going to happen: not in my lifetime, my children's lifetime or my children's children's lifetime

What Do We Need From the Battery of the Future? By David Biello | Txchnologist
(Jeffrey Chamberlain... the lead scientist of the 'Energy Storage Initiative' at the Energy Department's Argonne National Laboratory .)

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I read the article.. I SEE that current technology ain't going to do it for us.

Good thing for us, though, that the guy who invented the wheel didn't STOP when he faced those same hurdles.

excon

[tomder55]

What government paid for his research ?
We don't disagree with invention and discovery. You seem to think that it is our responsiblilty to subsidize it. It's a Joe Biden Elizabeth Warren falacy that I'm surprised you fall for .

[excon]

what government paid for his research ?

Hello again, tom:

There are myriad ways in which our government subsidizes scientific research. It runs the gambit from research undertaken by STATE owned universities to government owned facilities, direct investment in business, or the granting of tax credits and deductions.

I favor ALL of them. I ALSO liked the space program. What?? You didn't?

excon

[tomder55]

The space race was a contest between command and control governance and a free enterprise system .The free enterprise system won. The technology to do it was known and largely proven to be doable long before Kennedy pressed the issue.

Yes we paid for it ,as great frontier nations should .Perhaps the message from that time is to keep your fiscal house in order if you want to be a great nation. I wonder how many libs back then said what I hear them frequently ask today... why are we in space when there are more pressing things to do on earth ?

I hate to break it to you ,but the biggest innovations in space travel for many years now has come from the private sector . Last I heard ,the President correctly knocked down the ridiculous big fire cracker called 'Constellation ' that the government was promoting .

That's because the future technology to pursue a space program will come from the private sector;just like it has in the past.

Now ,if our fiscal house was in order ;and there was an urgency to it ,then of course I would favor more investment in space ;just like I would've favored the Louisiana purchase in 1800s .

You mentioned the Chinese overtaking us in energy innovation ;and I guess Newt is arguing that we should colonize the moon lest we lose that edge too.
My counter-argument to both points is that if the Chinese advance in either it will be technology they stole . Their command and control system invented nothing .If they were developing their projects with their own, it would come crashing back to earth just like the Russian Phobos probe.

[paraclete]

My counter-argument to both points is that if the Chinese advance in either it will be technology they stole . Their command and control system invented nothing .If they were developing their projects with their own, it would come crashing back to earth just like the Russian Phobos probe.

How disengenuous of you Tom. Do you thing the only innovation comes from the US? The US is far more likely to have stolen the technology than the Chinese. If they stole it their space program should have caught up with yours by now and we would see Chinese on the Moon or on their way to Mars. No, the malaise in the US space program is they have no competitors to steal from, no German scientists to contribute ideas, I doubt there has been an original thought in 60 years. Go build another space capsule