Saw this today. Fact checkers what say you? Which side of the board is more right?
Ok fact checkers what say you?
- Thread starter Blanca BusaLess
- Start date
1busa
Registered
Good idea
Cant wait for this election to be over 1 way or another 
All I hear and see everywhere I go is the same rhetoric. I cant even relax and hang out on a "motorcycle" forum without having to deal with it.........seriously? 
GNBRETT
Registered
well, one is a business man and one is not. not really a fair comparison. being POTUS certainly isnt all about business but considering the creation of jobs is paramount right now it makes Romney look like the better choice.
but im sure there will be several companies that Romney would invest in if elected that go bankrupt. just not nearly as many as Obama did imo.
but im sure there will be several companies that Romney would invest in if elected that go bankrupt. just not nearly as many as Obama did imo.
Four posts and not an answer to the question?
Which side of the board has more truth in it?
Which side of the board has more truth in it?
Do you REALLY have to ask?
But remember, those companies are EVIL and should be PUNISHED for daring to make a profit! But going bankrupt on taxpayer money is GOOD...how ironic...
cheferman65
Registered
What was the cost of those billion's generated? What price do you put on shipping jobs overseas?
Creating wealth for personal benefit is quite a bit different than running a country.
Creating wealth for personal benefit is quite a bit different than running a country.
That's quite the list,
Staples, Burger King, Domino's Pizza, Guitar center, Toys R us, Sports authority...
All you need is three of those burger flipping, t-shirt folding, shelf stocking jobs to put enough gas in the tank so you can join the new American middle class living out of their car, driving from job to job.
A man used to be able to support a family, buy a house, send your kids to school by making things for other Americans, that was the American dream but forty years of free trade, NAFTA, "what's good for corporations is good for America" has pissed that dream down the toilet.
Good luck with Mit's new jobs America, you are going to need it.
Cheers
Ken
Staples, Burger King, Domino's Pizza, Guitar center, Toys R us, Sports authority...
All you need is three of those burger flipping, t-shirt folding, shelf stocking jobs to put enough gas in the tank so you can join the new American middle class living out of their car, driving from job to job.
A man used to be able to support a family, buy a house, send your kids to school by making things for other Americans, that was the American dream but forty years of free trade, NAFTA, "what's good for corporations is good for America" has pissed that dream down the toilet.
Good luck with Mit's new jobs America, you are going to need it.
Cheers
Ken
rockethead
Registered
great sign
Before answering, I'm not thrilled with either party, still surprised that the best the Republicans could deliver was first McCain and Sarah and now Romney and Ryan.
But getting back to the sign, it will make a great impact on the uninformed and uneducated and it is part the Republican BS so clearly demonstrated by Fox.
The truth is that the left were investments made with the objective of making money, while the right were a small, only a small amount of companies who failed amongst those sponsored towards furthering clean energy. Two totally different purposes, one for personal gain, the other to try and better the planet.
But getting back to the sign, it will make a great impact on the uninformed and uneducated and it is part the Republican BS so clearly demonstrated by Fox.
The truth is that the left were investments made with the objective of making money, while the right were a small, only a small amount of companies who failed amongst those sponsored towards furthering clean energy. Two totally different purposes, one for personal gain, the other to try and better the planet.
Important to dig a bit deeper, when Romney makes statements. Linky below.
Not trying to hijack the thread, but as with the sign, there is a lot of conduct purely aimed at misleading the public.
Column: Romney's auto mess shows he is not ready
Not trying to hijack the thread, but as with the sign, there is a lot of conduct purely aimed at misleading the public.
Column: Romney's auto mess shows he is not ready
StromBusa
Registered
For industry perspecitves:
IndustryWeek Home Page
And wait for the Gen 4 Hayabusa with this engine technology:
Technology: The Composite Technology of Fuel Efficiency | Emerging Technologies content from IndustryWeek
IndustryWeek Home Page
And wait for the Gen 4 Hayabusa with this engine technology:
Technology: The Composite Technology of Fuel Efficiency | Emerging Technologies content from IndustryWeek
Looked at your first link and take the liberty to post another link from there.
With their Jobs Headed to China, Factory Workers Camp at 'Bainport' to Focus Attention on Offshoring | Global Economy content from IndustryWeek
GNBRETT
Registered
thats nonsense! any investment made whether if its in the private sector of thru the govenment is made with the objective of making money.
they were not charitable donations Obama made for cleaner energy???. they were failed investments. just because those companies invested in are aimed at clean energy doesnt mean they invested in those companies without the goal of making a profit.
clean energy just happned to be what they were investing in. the private sector invests in clean energy all the time for profit. the government is no different. they just happened to be poor investments.
SLO MO
Registered
Without being familiar with the particulars on each company and the details surrounding them it would be hard to say, It would take hours of reading and research on the companies on that list and circumstances surrounding each.
It's really a loaded question because one thing that easily jumps out to me is the companies on the blue side manufacture or develop a technology or resource that would probably be considered to be in its early stages and would be a higher risk, but usually innovative tech is boom or bust, but you have to make a leap of faith or nothing ground breaking would be developed. Now take a look at the red side all of the companies provide an established and far less complicated service, fast food, pizza, movies, sporting equipment, radio, movie theaters etc... so it would really be an apples to oranges comparison.
I just picked one company on the blue side of the board and looked up some facts regarding it's failure but it's often easier to just throw out statements because the most people are not going to spend the time it would take to look deep into it.
Quick notes in one of the articles I read:
Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Ener1 Inc., the owner of a company that received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant to make electric-car batteries, filed for bankruptcy protection after defaulting on bond debt amid heavy competition from Asia.
The company listed assets of $73.9 million and debt of $90.5 million as of Dec. 31 in Chapter 11 papers filed today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. Ener1 has been affected by competing battery developers in China and South Korea, “which generally have a lower cost manufacturing base” and lower labor and raw material costs, interim Chief Executive Officer Alex Sorokin said in the petition.
Ener1, based in New York, makes lithium-ion batteries for plug-in electric cars, which were scrutinized by federal auto- safety officials after a General Motors Co. Chevrolet Volt caught fire, people familiar with the probe said in November. A two-month federal safety investigation cleared the Volt of danger, and GM is beginning a marketing effort to tout the car as safe and innovative.
Under President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package, the Energy Department awarded grants in an attempt to create a U.S. electric-car industry. Ener1’s EnerDel unit, based in Indianapolis, was the grant recipient and has received about $55 million of its grant so far.
“While it’s unfortunate that Ener1, the parent company, has entered a restructuring process,” the investment of “private capital demonstrates that the technology has merit,” Jen Stutsman, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department, said in an e-mail. “The restructuring is not expected to impact EnerDel’s operations and the company has made clear that they do not expect to reduce employment at the site.”
Ener1’s grant application received bipartisan support from Indiana lawmakers, and the company got a $6.5 million Energy Department advanced-battery grant and a $4 million Defense Department research and development contract under the George W. Bush administration.
Ener1’s bankruptcy follows the failure of at least two U.S. government-backed renewable energy companies. Solar panel maker Solyndra LLC and energy storage company Beacon Power Corp. filed for bankruptcy after receiving government loan guarantees.
Similar threads
