Join The Community

Is Romney anti-Tesla?

In tonight's debate (10/22/23) Romney said the Government investing in Tesla, amongst a few other companies, is not a good way to create American jobs. Is he anti-Tesla? And should we worry about losing the EV tax credit for 2013 and beyond if he is elected? I am not trying to flame or campaign, just trying to get a clear understanding on what a Romney administration might mean to Tesla.

+1 Matt

Although I do agree to a point with tesla.mrspaghet...

Your ultimate and ideal goal should be to educate and convert the "ignorant ones" to your understanding (or at least reach a common understanding). They too have voting rights and although logic and reasoning applied to sound knowledge rarely gets through, it can do on occasion and every little bit helps.

But then having said that, I'm not particularly impressed with either of the two main candidates, so moot point really :)

+1 Mel

It's good to remember that there actually are more than two candidates (not that the others have a bat's chance in hell of getting in).

Personally I think Jill Stein (Green Party) has the best policies regarding energy, environment, reducing unemployment, building sustainable infrastructure, reducing government debt...

And most importantly, her face and smile paint the picture of a woman I know I can trust to say what she thinks and act as she says she will... a true rarity among politicians.

She was arrested trying to get into the presidential candidate debates to have her say... so much for democracy :)

PS - I donate to Bradley's defense fund most months and will continue to do so as long as I'm alive and he's still behind bars.

Jbunn, you are on top of this. But please give me something that Gary did as governor, that Makes him ineligabe.


This thread has to stop .. Now you people are sticking up for Bradley Manning? OMFG!

This moron leaks national secrets and you support him? This A hole needs to be publicly hung for treason.

Why don't all of you who support him put on facebook every dirty little thing you did or thought about doing and see how well it goes over?

This amount of ignorance is unbelievable.

Ever watch sausage being made? .... then tell us how tasty the end result is. Watch animals get slaughtered then enjoy your steak?

Unfortunately crap happens and has to happen on behalf of the Country's safety and security. If you don't like it LEAVE. Then you can complain.

Umm... time to go to the test - Ignore - Body thread.......

Steven, so you are the decider! No more trials , torture American military personnel. Never let him see the light of day? What country are you from?

Steven, I must agree with Mel. Did he leak national secrets? Did he commit treason? How do you know?

If he commited treason, fine. Take him to a court, review the evidence, follow any appeal process, then by all means hang him.

But right now we don't know that. In a free society, throw the facts out on the table and make a decision. What are we afraid of?

Mel, I don't think anything Gary did makes him INELEGIABLE. I over heard two guys talking in a bar. One said, how come we have a dozen girls to choose for Miss America, but only two choices for president? Well, that's what the primary system is for. This is more like the superbowl, or world series where we have two teams in the final match.

No reason we have two parties actualy. I voted for Anderson but we ended up with Reagan. My cousin voted for Perot but he got Clinton. Some folks voted for Nader, and we got Dubya. In my lifetime, we've never had a viable 3rd part candidate that did anything other than a be a spoiler. And the two parties like it that way, and they are running the debate schedule. Right now, we use money as a standard of campaign fitness. Raising money while essential to being a candidate, is not allways the qualities required for an office. Sadley, that's kinda what we are stuck with for now.

Why all the Tesla bashing when the congress approved government loan guarantee of $8.3 billion for Southern Co. to turn a simple concept of boiling water into something so practically toxic and dangerous of a nuclear plant?

In addition, Department Of Energy (DOE) already spent $13.5 billion on the now defunct Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility.

DOE is now spending $12.2 billion so far to construct Hanford, Washington facility by 2022 to temporarily process excess radioactive waste and let the next generation to figure out what to do with it in 40-100 years.

The bill for nuclear waste clean up in the US is easily about 400 billion dollars over 75 years.

Nuclear is touted as cheap and environmentally friendly but ignoring the fact of the unsolvable problem of spending money, time, health and civilization in the hope of outlive nuclear waste.

Man-made Plutonium-239 has a 250,000-year half-life and that’s longer than Homo sapiens has been around. Uranium-238 with a 4.5 billion-year half-life and that’s the lifespan of Planet Earth.

There seems to be no amount of money to control the waste of nuclear plants and there seems to be no human time or even earth time to outlast its invisible but harmful radioactivity.

“Free market” lesson: private profits for the nuclear industry while the public pays for its private company’s loss and waste.

So, stop beating down on Tesla for the 06/2009 Bush’s DOE loan guarantee of $465 Million that could be repaid in a fraction of human life time!

I think there are a lot of misconceptions surrounding Romney and his comments regarding Tesla. When I first heard him mention Tesla I too believed he was being negative about the company. However under closer examination I now understand what he was really trying to say. Investment in individual companies and securities is not in the best interest of the nation and absolutely does not fall within the rights or responsibilities of the government. He is not anti-Tesla.

Tam: research funding is different from venture capital investing. I have no problem with the Gov't doing long-range R&D, but the Gov't should not be funding individual companies/technology.


Romney mentioned Tesla in two debates. I think you are right that the second mention has been widely misconstrued. However in the first debate he went further and said that half of the government investment went to failed companies (a claim that has since be shown to be wildly false) and he did name Tesla as one of the "losers".

Did the government invest in Tesla? It invested in G.M. and AIG, but it never owned shares of Tesla. The government did not invest in Tesla any more than it invested in the homes that were financed through FHA or the businesses that got SBA loans.

Carl, what a different outlook we would have if the debates were between Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.


I have my own liens/slants/biases etc,
and as usual, I will exercise my right to
"un-elect" everyone who is currently elected (-:


You have a great point. Given Romney's business and investment background I would think he would have pretty good knowledge into the company, its management and the loan extended by the DOE.
The simplest explanation could be that he is misinformed but I think everyone informed will agree with me that Tesla is in no way a failure. Personally, I believe that Tesla has achieved true automotive greatness and will only continue to amaze us with its design and engineering brilliance.

A simpler explanation - since he was at Solyndra just a mile or two down the road you really can't miss the factory... Perhaps he's playing to a particular demographic.

Regarding Bradley Manning. He is an American Hero if he actually released the video of the journalists being murdered by the US military.
The real reason I support the Tesla and it's builders is quite simple. Our worldwide empire and it's military tentacles are in place to support our lust for oil. If we longer have to rely on foriegn sources then the justification for killing to maintain the flow is no longer justified. Our military adventures have destroyed this country's soul. Every Tesla, Volt and Focus EV is a nail in the coffin of the military industrial complex. I only hope our collective support of this gamechanging tech will have a positive effect of the body politic, and be the catalyst for elimination of the military security state. I hope this happens before it is too late for us.

+1 Bob

Middle East oil accounts for less than 15% of our oil. But we actualy buy most of our imported oil from Latam and Canada, and ALL of it on the world market.

Even if we get completley off Middleast oil, and the world oil market goes up because of trouble somewhere or increaced demand, the price of our oil STILL goes up. Even if we produced 100% of our oil and the production cost was $100 a barrel, when the world market goes to $125, refiners here would be forced to pay $125, or the oil would be sold overseas (allowing for shipping costs).

I think it's funny when we talk about oil as being "our" strategic interest. We've claimed dibs on it. Apparently God put it underneath some other country by mistake.


So you're saying that the price of oil is affected by the world market. How is that different from the price of solar panels, wind turbines, food, cotton, beer or almost anything else?

Solar panels for example are finished goods. Oil is a raw material. The value in a solar panel is also influenced by a number of other factors. Oil does fluctuate with world events, partuculary in the middle east because of shortages and futures speculation. Why? What are you thinking?


Finished goods are made from raw materials, thus everything is affected by world market events which influence prices.

Why? What are you thinking?

I'm still just wondering what your point is. You've stated a basic truth about supply and demand as if it's some great revelation about oil in particular.

There is a huge difference between oil and any other raw material. Whenever anything happens in the gulf, middle east, or refinery anywhere in the world it seems the price at the pump goes up and rarely comes down to previous cost. When the entire coast of Japan is wiped out I didn't see solar panel prices go up much less go up and never come back down. Toyota lost thousands of Leaf's but the price didn't go thru the roof.

Oil goes up and down significantly on speculation alone.

Sudre, very true.

Oil is traded as a commodity by people that will never posess, see, or store it and have no interest in being in the oil business. If we wanted to bring down the price of oil, we might want to look at tightning rules on speculation trading as a good place to start.

My point from a few posts earlier was even if the US was 100% oil independent on domestic production alone, we still won't be isolated from instability in the middle east. This suggests controling the supply will not solve the problem. So we need to change the demand side of the equation.

Jbunn was standing up for the rule of law and against Obama torturing Americans..also the need for us to stop depending on oil.. I think we all agree with him, and one of the reasons we are buying an S.

Leafs and Toyota. Different thread


Look at the long term charts for silver and copper, for example, and you'll see at least as much volatility. Oil is hardly unique in that respect.


There's a reason speculation in oil, wheat and a host of other things came into existence. If you were to ban or restrict it, you might be unpleasantly surprised at the effects of doing so. Futures markets allow businesses to plan budgets, and allow the assumption of risk by those most able to deal with it. It's also known as hedging, and there would be much more volatility without it, not less.


Oh yeah, and I believe most solar panels are made in China, not Japan.

And the price of the Leaf didn't go up because no one even seems to be buying them even at pre-tsunami prices. So they couldn't very well have raised the price.

Supply and demand at work again.

The leaf won't sell because it's hideous looking and Nissan's interest in advertising it effectively is limited. The same holds for GM's anemic advertising of the Volt, though I like the Volt.

I'm not suggesting we ban speculation, but there are some ways you can decreace volitility through tightning the rules up a bit. But let's face it. A more likeley reason supeculation exists is because people can make money at it. If you're United Airlines, you might want to purchase futures for fuel for your business. But above I was very specific to mention there are players in the market that have no interst in the commodity per se.

These are all interesting, but I'm more focused on influencing the demand side of the supply and demand equation.


You presume to decide who "has an interest". Omit speculators who just want to "make money" (as if there's something wrong with that) and you remove many of those among whom risk can be distributed, defeating one of the principle reasons for the existence of the market.

It's pretty clear you don't understand how speculating works and you're just repeating sound bites from Charles Schumer. If I'm wrong, what rules would you tighten up, and how would such tightening decrease volatility?

I have and do trade futures and options, so using the jargon isn't enough to fool me.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen