Fisker hybrid cars, which recived a $529,000,000 government loan, being recalled due to fire hazard

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Where in the constitution does it mention free market?

Huh? The Constitution specifically lists what the government CAN do. Anything not listed it CAN NOT do, like invest our money in industries of its choosing.

Take the microwave for example. The first microwave was government funded.

The microwave oven was invented by Raytheon based on their radar technology developed during World War II. Their were no government subsidies involved.

Like I said, you can be against it...but arguing it doesn't create jobs or stimulate the economy is silly. Even worse, most of the time those investments actually net a RETURN for the government at the same time. You know, money to build roads, pay teachers, the guys who come save your burning house...

Huh? Teachers and firemen are paid by municipalities through property taxes, not by the federal government.

You really need to get a basic grasp on how local and federal economics work before making further pronouncements.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Oh, and regarding the "it's against the constitution" and "the government shouldn't do that". Fine. You are entitled to that opinion.

It is not an 'opinion', The United States Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to take taxpayer money and transfer it to private industries or companies of its choosing in hopes of a profitable return.

Maybe we should all give our representatives access to our 401K's and IRA's so they can place them in the industries or sectors they think are going to be winners and hope that we get a nice return. The idiots we vote into office are not financial whizs if you have not noticed. We are on the road to insolvency and yet they take more of our tax dollars and toss them at companies that LOBBY them the hardest. There is no thought process here, they work strictly on personal profit (garnered from insider trading) or political idealogy. Two perfectly good reasons why they should not be playing this game with our tax dollars.

Where in the constitution does it explicitly forbid the government to invest money?

I hope you realize that if the government weren't allowed to do that, the national debt would be at even more comical proportions than it already is.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Where in the constitution does it explicitly forbid the government to invest money?

I hope you realize that if the government weren't allowed to do that, the national debt would be at even more comical proportions than it already is.

Please read my previous post as you obviously do not understand the framework and operation of the United States Constitution.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


The company that invented the microwave was a defence contractor getting most of its funds from those projects. As for the examples of federal expenses I listed, replace the wrong ones with others like national security...same exact end result.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Where in the constitution does it explicitly forbid the government to invest money?

I hope you realize that if the government weren't allowed to do that, the national debt would be at even more comical proportions than it already is.

Please read my previous post as you obviously do not understand the framework and operation of the United States Constitution.

Where in the constitution does it say the government can detain citizens indefinitely without a trial? It's done it for years too

Tons of stuff going on that's not in there. It's a short document that serves as a FRAMEWORK just like every constitution.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The company that invented the microwave was a defence contractor getting most of its funds from those projects.

Which it bid on against other private companies and had its bid accepted. It did not receive subsidies to build a microwave oven as you previously stated.

As for the examples of federal expenses I listed, replace the wrong ones with others like national security...same exact end result.

You are getting budgetary items like national security (which is a constitutional federal government mandate) confused with non-budgetary items like funding pet industries. The budgetary items such as these go out for bid in what we hope is a fair and transparent process (it obviously always is not) which results in the specific industry competiting with itself to offer the lowest bid. When money is granted by fiat there is no oversight, it is only political pandering, incompetence or the result of lobbying and crony capitalism.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Where in the constitution does it say the government can detain citizens indefinitely without a trial? It's done it for years too

Tons of stuff going on that's not in there. It's a short document that serves as a FRAMEWORK just like every constitution.

Irrelevant, and a logical fallacy. This does not make either one of the points legal, they are both equally illegal.

Just because we have right-infringing acts passed does not mean that we should then let politicians pick winners in loosers in their pet industries or sectors.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I hope you realize that if the government weren't allowed to do that, the national debt would be at even more comical proportions than it already is.

Two economically retarded examples of government subsidies making everyone's life better [/sarcasm]:

The next two presidents, Hoover and Roosevelt, broke the precedents set by Morton, Coolidge, and 140 years of American history. The Great Depression hit the United States, and both men argued that others must be taxed so that some farmers could be subsidized.

Hoover’s program was the Farm Board, which fixed price floors for wheat and cotton only. If market prices went below 80 cents a bushel for wheat and 20 cents a pound for cotton, the federal government would step in to buy the crop, pay to store it, and hope to resell it later for a decent price.

The Farm Board had disastrous unintended consequences for almost everyone. For example, many farmers who typically grew other crops shifted to wheat or cotton because they were protected and now provided a secure income. The resulting overproduction forced down the prices of both crops below the price floors, so the government had to buy over 250 million bushels of wheat and 10 million bales of cotton.The costs of buying and storing these crops quickly used up the program’s allotted $500 million. After about two years of buying surpluses, the government finally just gave them away or sold them on the world market at huge losses.

When Roosevelt became president, he also intervened in the farm business, but in a different way. He supported the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which dealt with the problem of oversupply by paying farmers not to produce.As for farm prices, they would be pegged to the purchasing power of farm prices in 1910; millers and processors would pay for much of the cost of the program, which of course meant an increase for consumers in the price of everything from bread to shirts. source

Sorry, government subsidies are always bad news.

I personally would of rather them spent
the money on new military technology.

If my money is going to fund
anything at least let it be our defense..

Need to stay number 1 at something and if that something
is military tech and innovation then good deal..

reply to post by popsmayhem


Military tech will withhold it from the public so that they can weaponize it first. Not every tech advance should come from defense as that puts too much control into the hands directly of the military. Since most of these Governmental contractors who develop tech are heavily Govt regulated and controlled.

Why can't an upstart with no Govt contracts play too?

Ford and GM were both founded on private money with little to no help from Govt so that debunks that claim right there.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

 

I'm actually a little more woried by this:

WHY the HELL did we have a $500+ million dollar loan to a corporation based in FINLAND to produce $100k+ cars in FINLAND?

It sounds like our glorious leader is subsidizing the Finnish economy so's he can say look what a great economy this is let's do it like the Finnish do.Dear leader has been trying to make us into a European style socialist country. Also he used taxpayer funds for Brazilian Petrobas, a socialized oil company of Brazil while killing domestic oil production. Seems to be his MO to redistribute American taxpayer dollars to socialist economies. If these economies are so great why do they need our money?