Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: drewtam on October 05, 2012, 08:08:01 AM
-
Here is what a good auto industry site has to say...
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/10/romney-dubs-tesla-fisker-as-losers-as-tesla-issues-stock-to-stay-afloat/
I think Romney jumped the gun a little calling Tesla a loser, or implying it will fail. Tesla is neither dead in the water nor thriving. Its a wait and see moment. I expect jumping the gun on that company will come back to bite him, but probably not before Nov.
-
For a second there, I thought he insulted Tesla the inventor. If so, I was about to lose my gorram mind.
Unfortunately, he has a point. While I'd like Tesla Motors to succeed, if the government is prop'ing them up...
-
The Tesla Model S - their cheapest S version with the smallest battery - lists for about $50,000, after the $7500 Federal electric car rebate is applied. Their top of the line S model is about twice that.
That's pricey for a sedan - and the market is only a small niche.
Factor in the uncertainty of future (or even current) parts and service from a company with questionable finances and no real dealer network, and you can judge for yourself what their chances of success are in the new car market.
-
Reading the article, I'd say Mitt is on the money.
And for the record....how many solar companies has Obama invested in that have failed spectacularly?
http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/
I'm no Mitt fanboi, but at least when it comes to economic central planning I've got way more faith that he won't be tossing billions down the failing business rabbit hole.
I predict he'd likely blow as much coin, but at least on successful businesses.
-
Tesla is a car company that seems to be providing vehicles to the rich, liberal, feeling guilty about their wealth segment of the market.
I may have three households and a huge carbon footprint due to my wealth, but I make sure and recycle plus I drive a Tesla! Save the planet!
-
No matter how they try, no matter how much (tax) money they get, they simply can't beat physics and chemistry.
-
I predict he'd likely blow as much coin, but at least on successful businesses.
Likely. Despite all the similarities between Obama and Obama-lite, at least Mitt actually has experience with real businesses.
-
They would have already failed if it wasn't for a weighted playing field beig provided by the government. The only shame in the GM Volt program is that it is not, by itself, big enough to destroy GM again. But I have faith they'll find a way. Anyone with balls would put GGM into the winners and losers discussion, right along with the too big to fail brokerages.
-
Tesla is a car company that seems to be providing vehicles to the rich, liberal, feeling guilty about their wealth segment of the market.
I may have three households and a huge carbon footprint due to my wealth, but I make sure and recycle plus I drive a Tesla! Save the planet!
Spot on.
Ben Affleck and Sean Penn and Lindsay Lohan need to have something cool to drive. It's only fair that We the Put Upon subsidize it.
-
The $7.5k will eventually phase out. Most of the Tesla benefit is the DOE loans, which if they are a successful venture, will be paid back.
The point is that if this company is eventually successful, the amount spent on it by gov't will be budgetary pocket change. Is it the role of gov't to be a venture capitalist? No. But this is not the best example of investment failures if it turns into a successful company that helps transform transportation.
The big 5 are: Soc Sec, Medicare/aid, DoD, Interest on debt, and everything else.
Cutting the first 3 will reduce #4. Then start talking about everything else.
-
The big 5 are: Soc Sec, Medicare/aid, DoD, Interest on debt, and everything else.
Cutting the first 3 will reduce #4. Then start talking about everything else.
You are aware that Social Security is currently in actuarial surplus, don't you, and isn't expected to go into the red for a couple of decades? There's a structural problem down the road that is best addressed now, but it's hardly kosher to blame SS for today's fiscal problems simply because the program is a creditor that needs to be paid back.
Medicare - especially the Bush medicare drug plan, funded with perpetual borrowing - is a problem.
Medicaid is even more problematic, as it's an unearned entitlement - a pure giveaway.
DOD is about 19% of the Federal budget . . . my concern there isn't so much the amount, but "bang for the buck."
-
How does SS run a surplus, when it all goes into the general budget, and the general budget is running a deficit? :facepalm:
Don't tell me SS payroll taxes are special for SS, when it all goes into the general gov't slush fund. That's just Enron accounting.
Even only balancing the SS vs its "special" payroll taxes, the program is still in the red.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-first-time-ever/
That was written in 2010. That rosy economic expectations did not pan out, it never went black. So that is current and future debt.
At the end of the day, we've collected tax revenue at about 17-20% of GDP since WW2, plus change in debt yields total cash inflow. The big 5 consumers are Soc Sec, Medicare/aid, DoD, Interest on debt, and everything else.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentspending.com%2Fusgs_line.php%3Ftitle%3DUS%2520Federal%2520Deficit%2520As%2520Percent%2520Of%2520GDP%26amp%3Bunits%3Dp%26amp%3Bsize%3Dl%26amp%3Byear%3D1900_2010%26amp%3Bsname%3DUS%26amp%3Bbar%3D0%26amp%3Bstack%3D1%26amp%3Bcol%3Dc%26amp%3Blegend%3D%26amp%3Bsource%3Da_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_b%26amp%3Bspending0%3D-0.20_-0.27_-0.34_-0.24_-0.06_0.01_-0.12_-0.30_0.02_0.09_-0.10_-0.12_0.01_0.02_0.20_0.56_0.31_1.82_11.86_16.80_-0.67_-0.91_-0.68_-0.66_-0.73_-0.47_-0.67_-0.98_-0.68_-0.46_-0.96_0.17_2.78_3.27_3.11_4.12_4.76_2.84_1.42_2.32_3.02_3.73_12.04_28.05_22.35_24.07_9.06_-1.32_-4.33_-1.48_0.43_-2.30_-0.06_1.52_0.49_0.37_-1.21_-1.15_0.01_1.59_-0.48_0.65_1.22_0.77_0.89_0.20_0.47_1.04_2.77_-0.33_0.27_2.04_1.89_1.08_0.41_3.25_4.04_2.64_2.58_1.59_2.65_2.53_3.93_5.88_4.72_5.03_4.96_3.16_3.04_2.78_3.81_4.49_4.58_3.83_2.87_2.21_1.37_0.26_-0.79_-1.34_-2.37_-1.25_1.48_3.39_3.48_2.52_1.86_1.15_3.19_10.13_10.64&hash=886f74c1148018c5d2233c854f949e60a31b48b7)
This is deficit as % of GDP. Integrate (add up) the area under the curve to get total debt. Any % less than inflation rate, causes total debt to gdp to fall.
This plot is useful for showing how much tax revenue is augmented by new debt, year by year. One can easily see WW1, GD, WW2, and the current GD2. Which we have attacked with 2x as much deficit spending compared to GD1. Was it 2x more effective than Hoovers and Roosevelt's GD deficit spending? It certainly feels like we have had a softer landing. But we also came off a higher level of wealth. So it is hard for me to judge. Unfortunately, the constant debt run from 1980 to 1998 piled up a huge amount of debt. [Lower percent over a longer time equal same area under the curve.] So we don't have much head room to sustain any deficit spending before having a public debt crisis like the current private debt crisis.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usgovernmentspending.com%2Fusgs_line.php%3Ftitle%3DGross%2520Public%2520Debt%26amp%3Bunits%3Dp%26amp%3Bsize%3Dl%26amp%3Byear%3D1792_2017%26amp%3Bsname%3DUS%26amp%3Bbar%3D0%26amp%3Bstack%3D1%26amp%3Bcol%3Dc%26amp%3Blegend%3D%26amp%3Bsource%3Da_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_e_e_e_e_e%26amp%3Bspending0%3D34.63_32.27_25.14_21.25_20.28_20.26_19.37_17.94_17.43_16.31_18.10_15.99_16.40_14.80_12.39_11.87_10.19_8.39_7.61_6.32_5.80_5.83_7.63_10.90_15.70_16.23_14.17_13.27_12.95_12.36_11.72_12.09_12.08_10.29_9.45_8.16_7.60_6.34_4.80_3.75_2.18_0.61_0.39_0.00_0.00_0.02_0.21_0.63_0.23_0.32_0.85_2.11_1.39_0.86_0.76_1.63_1.96_2.63_2.48_2.53_2.18_1.82_1.15_0.90_0.80_0.69_1.11_1.33_1.49_1.97_9.06_14.69_19.20_27.13_30.83_32.10_32.06_32.99_32.06_31.00_27.38_25.53_26.55_27.36_26.24_25.88_26.93_25.10_20.46_17.79_15.71_15.30_15.54_16.08_14.57_12.61_12.21_11.69_10.29_10.03_9.71_10.03_11.54_10.74_11.42_11.25_9.93_10.21_10.39_9.62_8.97_8.49_8.82_7.90_7.53_7.26_8.72_8.19_7.94_8.05_7.67_7.45_7.98_7.91_7.27_9.58_19.24_34.97_29.36_32.58_31.27_26.17_24.44_22.65_20.26_19.38_18.08_16.34_17.75_21.96_33.20_39.96_40.99_39.16_40.31_39.64_43.16_43.86_50.00_45.41_48.92_71.83_92.85_116.65_121.96_105.35_93.66_94.54_87.45_75.24_72.31_70.12_71.19_66.16_62.34_59.04_59.86_56.74_55.19_53.72_51.72_50.23_47.63_44.82_41.70_40.90_40.52_37.16_36.69_36.22_35.22_33.73_32.27_33.09_34.47_34.80_33.86_32.37_32.60_31.82_34.96_38.81_39.80_43.09_47.54_49.53_51.00_52.31_55.28_60.05_63.10_65.26_65.54_66.36_66.10_64.44_62.30_59.93_56.56_56.09_58.24_60.67_62.05_62.63_63.18_63.80_69.50_85.20_93.13_97.82_104.80_107.43_107.84_106.87_105.87_104.70&hash=9d0c1861917b020f853c5a9857f4a8d58a76fdb4)
So bottom line...
It all has to be cut... SS, MediX, DoD, & Everything else. But the big 3 need to be reformed first; they are the most critical to a balanced budget and balance budget cannot be achieved without those 3.
-
So bottom line...
It all has to be cut... SS, MediX, DoD, & Everything else. But the big 3 need to be reformed first; they are the most critical to a balanced budget and balance budget cannot be achieved without those 3.
What if we simply cut everything that isn't expressly authorized by the Constitution and Amendments and freeze the authorized things at their current spending levels? Radical idea, I know.
-
KGB, I agree with you ideologically. I'm trying to lay out the pragmatic case as well, for those who don't agree with the ideology, or don't care.
-
KGB, I agree with you ideologically. I'm trying to lay out the pragmatic case as well, for those who don't agree with the ideology, or don't care.
Pragmatism is what had gotten us here.
-
How does SS run a surplus, when it all goes into the general budget, and the general budget is running a deficit? :facepalm:
Don't tell me SS payroll taxes are special for SS, when it all goes into the general gov't slush fund. That's just Enron accounting.
The national debt has two components - public debt and intragovernmental debt. SS is the largest component of intragovernmental debt. Politicians only like to talk about budget deficits by considering public debt, but if you look at the national debt year by year, you'll see that even when the budget was "balanced" under Clinton, the national debt continued to increase, giving the LIE to the assertions of a balanced budget.
Here's some history of the national debt - note the TOTAL NATIONAL DEBT under the Clinton "balanced budget" years continued to increase:
http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
You are most certainly NOT balanced when you end up deeper in a hole at the end of the year than when you started.
Essentially, there's a special class of Treasury debt instruments for SS use - these are promises to pay back the money borrowed. (You might say pirated) from the SS trust fund. I believe SS may have begun redeeming these instruments now, in much the same way an individual may redeem a savings bond or treasury bill. There are enough of these debt instruments outstanding that, when combined with current receipts, SS can continue paying retiree and other benefits under current plans until sometime in the 2030s, unless Fed.gov defaults.
-
Essentially, there's a special class of Treasury debt instruments for SS use - these are promises to pay back the money borrowed. (You might say pirated) from the SS trust fund. I believe SS may have begun redeeming these instruments now, in much the same way an individual may redeem a savings bond or treasury bill. There are enough of these debt instruments outstanding that, when combined with current receipts, SS can continue paying retiree and other benefits under current plans until sometime in the 2030s, unless Fed.gov defaults.
Yes, I am well aware of that, hence my Enron accounting comment. From my point of view, its just a shell game to say "intragov't debt". Its like setting up shell companies to show to absorb all the losses while the main company only show profit. Eventually these kinds of shenanigans collapse due to cold hard reality.
The gov't has tax revenue and it has expenditures. The expenditures exceeds the tax revenue and requires debt issuance to cover the gap. SS is a major part of that expenditure that we have not been able to afford for nearly 30yrs.
-
Yes, I am well aware of that, hence my Enron accounting comment. From my point of view, its just a shell game to say "intragov't debt". Its like setting up shell companies to show to absorb all the losses while the main company only show profit. Eventually these kinds of shenanigans collapse due to cold hard reality.
The gov't has tax revenue and it has expenditures. The expenditures exceeds the tax revenue and requires debt issuance to cover the gap. SS is a major part of that expenditure that we have not been able to afford for nearly 30yrs.
SS has been bringing in more money than its been paying out for a long time; it's been an immense cash cow for fed.gov. But . . . it's decades worth of spending on OTHER programs that has run up todays national debt.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreethoughtblogs.com%2Frockbeyondbelief%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F02%2FDwight-Schrute-False.jpg&hash=9fe32a445a7baf79d5385f03cb5496af2665ed69)
If it all goes into the general fund, then there is no such thing as a special SS tax, no SS tax surplus, no SS lockbox.
SocSec does not bring in anything, its just another expenditure out of the general fund, paid by general tax revenue.
-
Too bad too many people believe the bunkum rather than drewtam's simple and brief recitation of reality.
A triumph of mendacity by policritters and hope by citizens, I guess.
-
. . . SocSec does not bring in anything, its just another expenditure out of the general fund, paid by general tax revenue.
So intragovernmental debt is imaginary - it doesn't exist.
The social security with holding on paychecks is an illusion - it's not real.
The matching payments by employers for SS are a fairy tale.
And SS has always been a loser, a net expenditure, despite the silly people & companies who think they pay separate SS taxes, and the legions of liars in government who claim to be borrowing against SS.
Clearly, everything - everything! - to the contrary, whatever the source (such as what's posted at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html ) is utterly false.
I'm glad that's been settled. :facepalm:
-
The Tesla Model S - their cheapest S version with the smallest battery - lists for about $50,000, after the $7500 Federal electric car rebate is applied. Their top of the line S model is about twice that.
That's pricey for a sedan - and the market is only a small niche.
Factor in the uncertainty of future (or even current) parts and service from a company with questionable finances and no real dealer network, and you can judge for yourself what their chances of success are in the new car market.
And it's REALLY easy, apparently, to bork the battery PERMANENTLY. Which is a $40K, out-of-warranty replacement cost in the ~$100K vehicle.
http://jalopnik.com/5887265/tesla-motors-devastating-design-problem
Although apparently their two newer models are less prone to bricking, it's still a concern - and one which cannot be covered by insurance, according to what I've read.
I'd love it if these comapnies succeeded. Current conditions seem to suggest that they are not there yet.
-
;/
You're being intentionally obtuse to the fact that those taxes, lockboxes, and debt accounting are just shell games and Enron accounting. When the gov't plays Enron accounting games, they and everyone else can say that these monies exist and have the paperwork to show it; but technicalities and paper games do not mean that the money is there. Reality is cold and uncaring to Enron accounting, and that money has been gone for 30yrs, and is just another expenditure driving the debt.
How many times do I have to explain that before you will engage the facts rather than fighting strawmen?
-
Intentionally obtuse?
Did you even bother reading anything at the links I posted? Or did you just dismiss out of hand what comes from any government website?
By your logic, treasury bills are an expense driving the debt. Savings bonds are an expense driving the debt. Treasury notes are an expense driving the debt. ANY creditor is an expense driving the debt.
I give up.
It's just no use trying to inform the invincibly ignorant.
-
Intentionally obtuse?
Did you even bother reading anything at the links I posted?
By your logic, treasury bills are an expense driving the debt. Savings bonds are an expense driving the debt. Treasury notes are an expense driving the debt. ANY creditor is an expense driving the debt.
I give up.
It's just no use trying to inform the invincibly ignorant.
A t-bill or bond is a debt.
It's money for the government to spend today... in exchange for money it owes back in X years.
-
A t-bill or bond is a debt.
It's money for the government to spend today... in exchange for money it owes back in X years.
Indeed.
The SS admin doesn't even get those. It get the "Special" T-Bills. "Special" as in "designed especially for the SSA and not for sale to anyone else, because we have no intention of honoring them." Or, they could be special in the "Special Olympics" sense.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html
All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.
Because the market wouldn't touch them with a 10' pole.
Let me show you in two different ways how useless the trust fund is. The first is a quote from the introduction to the 2009 Social Security trustees report, the second is the graphic by my Fortune colleague Robert Dominguez that accompanies this article.
...
"Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."
In other words, the trust fund is of no economic value.
If these trust fund bonds represent anything real, why is it that in calculating national indebtedness they are not even included? We measure national solvency by debt/GDP ratio. As calculated by everyone from the OMB to the CIA, from the Simpson-Bowles to the Domenici-Rivlin commissions, the debt/GDP ratio counts only publicly held debt. This means bonds held by China, Saudi Arabia, you and me. The debt ratio completely ignores the kind of intragovernmental bonds that Lew insists are the equivalent of publicly held bonds.
Why? Because the intragovernmental bond is nothing more than a bookkeeping device that records how much one part of the U.S. government (Treasury) owes another part of the same government (the Social Security Administration).
That's why publicly held bonds are so radically different from intragovernmental bonds. If we default on Chinese-held debt, decades of AAA creditworthiness is destroyed, the world stops lending to us, the dollar collapses, the economy goes into a spiral and we become Argentina. That's why such a default is inconceivable.
On the other hand, what would happen to financial markets if the Treasury stopped honoring the "special issue" bonds in the Social Security trust fund? A lot of angry grumbling at home for sure. But externally? Nothing.
This "default" would simply be the Treasury telling the Social Security Administration that henceforth it would have to fend for itself in covering its annual shortfall. How? By means-testing (cutting the benefits to the rich), changing the inflation formula, raising the retirement age and, if necessary, hiking the cap on income subject to the payroll tax.
The $40B that was "redeemed" by the SS trust fund in 2010 was immediately made good by the Treasury issuing $40B in treasury notes of some sort and the Fed Reserve printing money to buy them up. How long do you think this can go on?
Repeat after me, "The Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting gimmick of the sort that got folks at Enron time in Federal 'Pound Me in the ass' Prison."