Sorry, busy weekend. I'll point out that many drugs are developed using NIH funding and that the space program and the mlitary have brought us many technological advances. Science is an investment in the future. You never know what avenue of research will yield huge benefits. Small businesses and new technologies often need an incubator.
chickaree wrote: Sorry, busy weekend. I'll point out that many drugs are developed using NIH funding and that the space program and the mlitary have brought us many technological advances. Science is an investment in the future. You never know what avenue of research will yield huge benefits. Small businesses and new technologies often need an incubator.
I agree they do....but do the people we elect to government have some sort of special inside information about viable technologies so they can take our tax money and invest it for us? I agree that NASA is a special circumstance, but I also know that NASA has gotten much of it's technology from the private sector. The problem with NASA and the military, is that we know there is massive waste. At this point in our country, we need to maximize efficiency in our government like no other time in our history (imo). Our government knew we couldn't compete with China at this time with solar panels (they had to know) yet they threw money at it anyway...and there will be many more green companies that were just as poorly vetted.
This country needs to get financially well before we ever have a chance of converting from oil to green.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
New technologies have rescued our economy in the past. Manufacturing is gone and it ain't coming back. How do we employ our population? Corporations aren't hiring Americans any more. We need a new crop of small businesses to drive a recovery. The banks aren't lending, so shouldn't the government? The G.I. loan remade our society after WWII. One of the few things government could do is stop pumping money into Wall Street and send it instead back to the people via small business tax breaks, loans and subsidies. Government can't fix our economy and big business won't.
chickaree wrote: New technologies have rescued our economy in the past. Manufacturing is gone and it ain't coming back. How do we employ our population? Corporations aren't hiring Americans any more. We need a new crop of small businesses to drive a recovery. The banks aren't lending, so shouldn't the government? The G.I. loan remade our society after WWII. One of the few things government could do is stop pumping money into Wall Street and send it instead back to the people via small business tax breaks, loans and subsidies. Government can't fix our economy and big business won't.
New technologies have given us a boost in the past but I don't think we were ever "rescued"...once other countries like China get the technology, then we start to go backwards given our higher costs.
Manufacturing will be hard to get back, especially if we continue to have a more expensive business environment.
"Corporations arn't hiring anymore"? Really? Wouldn't that have something to do with the current economic crisis? If corporations need employees, they wil hire them.
I don't understand what all this has to do with the topic though. My only question for you is what makes you think the government is capable of investing WISELY in green energy given what a nightmare we are watching unfold before us? Don't you think they knew Solyndra couldn't compete or were they just too incompetent to work the numbers? Either way, why should we presume that all the other investments they are making for us have been examined closely for even a possibilty of a good R.O.E.?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
CriticalBill wrote: New technologies have given us a boost in the past but I don't think we were ever "rescued"...once other countries like China get the technology, then we start to go backwards given our higher costs.
Manufacturing will be hard to get back, especially if we continue to have a more expensive business environment.
"Corporations arn't hiring anymore"? Really? Wouldn't that have something to do with the current economic crisis? If corporations need employees, they wil hire them.
This is unavoidable unless you think the American worker should expect to work under the sam conditions as Foxconn.
CriticalBill wrote: I don't understand what all this has to do with the topic though. My only question for you is what makes you think the government is capable of investing WISELY in green energy given what a nightmare we are watching unfold before us? Don't you think they knew Solyndra couldn't compete or were they just too incompetent to work the numbers? Either way, why should we presume that all the other investments they are making for us have been examined closely for even a possibilty of a good R.O.E.?
Any venture capitalist will tell you that you will face 5 failures for every success. Looking at the track record of private lending institutions lately they are doing no better and have choked off the ability of start ups to get loans. I'd say the Solyndra fiasco has more to do with shenanigans with campaign funds than with green technology. Campaign finance reform would be an entirely different discussion. If the decision to loan money had been made solely on merit and not as a way to solicit political support it is likely that a more deserving company would have received the funds.
This company was failing...I don't think it was given the money for any other reason other than they were scrambling to find places to spend it.
This is a great lesson for the American public and if it forces our government to actually look into whether or not a company has even a chance to compete, then this waste of money was worth while. Nobody will be able to show any evidence that the company had a snowballs chance in hell of being a good deal for us.
As for venture capitalists, they use their own money and have far more reason to research these companies (and more experience) than do politicians in Washington who don't risk a cent of their own money and a generally clueless about business.
I guess we'll have to disagree about why the money was spent...but I do appreciate you playing along.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
CriticalBill wrote: Ok, for anyone who has read this thread: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="
285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14348
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14348<!-- l --> and would like to be the first to play, here's your chance. I'm starting with a very light and shallow topic....if you don't have a very strong opinion one way or another, just let someone else start and wait for an opponent. If nobody wants to take the other side, then we just call it dead and try another one later. The person who starts the debate gets the first word and the opponent gets the last. Lets see who can convince the rest of us that they are right while at the same time refraining from broad brush insults and personal attacks.
Here's the topic: Attackwatch.com
Is this something that is good, bad, helpful, harmful and should it be used for future presidents? There is no right answer, this is just purely opinion but do your best to convince the rest. Remember, once started, only the two participants should post and the current judge (me) will point out any BS that's only designed to insult and not add to the conversation. To make this short and sweet, lets just say the debate is over when each participant has made a maximum of 5 comments or if both agree they are done, whichever comes first.
Remember, you can give your opinions when it's all over, including about me and my bias or lack of as a judge. Hopefully I will just not be involved.
**Please Note** I'm stuck at home for the next month while I go through a heavy round of chemo....so I'm a little bored (obviously)
