Very amusing. From someone that claimed it can see russia from her backyard.

Very amusing. From someone that claimed it can see russia from her backyard.

joshnd03 | 7 April 2013

Is this about Sarah Palin or Tina Fey? Fey was the one who made that claim, not Palin.

Not to defend Palin, her argument is extremely misguided. There has been an abundance of cronyism in this administration (see Solnydra), but Tesla has not (as far as I know) been an overt benefactor.

Tesla, unlike Fiskar, has a legitimate product, a legitimate (though admittedly risky) business model, and a sustainable/profitable future. They have sufficiently diversified their revenue streams via their partnerships with other car companies, which if the Model X flops will allow them to continue operating. The fact that they have de-leveraged as much as they have gives them the optional capital flexibility through future loans in case they do run into financial problems.

I would think Palin would be a huge fan as they truly represent the american startup dream. But as she is nothing more than a shock jock now, I am not surprised.

Neech | 7 April 2013

That is definitely Palin in the video. Of course she would diss EV cars. Alaska gets billions of $$ from big oil, and since she is basically a talking head for Fox News, there is no chance she would do any research on the subject to validate her comments.

Mel. | 7 April 2013

Neech, I though that Fox fired her.

frmercado | 7 April 2013

People should go to her fb page and explain her how things really work. She doesn't seem to have a clue of what she is talking about.

Vawlkus | 8 April 2013

Did she ever?

alanwwebb | 8 April 2013

re Solyndra. Not cronyism. An acceptable investment risk. So far, its win/loss ratio is far better than Romney's investment firm.

A review by former (under George Bush) Treasury official Herb Allison says DOE could lose as much as $3 billion from companies that default on their guarantees, but that’s much less than the $10 billion that Congress had put aside for losses to the program...the overall loan portfolio holds less than the amount of risk envisioned by Congress when they designed and funded the program. While the portfolio includes loans to a range of projects that carry different levels of risk the Department of Energy has been judicious in balancing these risks.

“We have always known that there were inherent risks in backing innovative technologies at full commercial scale, and it is very likely that there will be other companies in the portfolio that won’t succeed,” Chu said. “But the vast majority of companies are expected to pay the loans back in full, on time and with about $8 billion in interest — while supporting a total of 60,000 American jobs and helping us compete for a rapidly growing global industry.”

Brian H | 8 April 2013

Solyndra was routing its customerless wonder-tubes directly into the trash stream in the dark of night, and the execs creamed off huge bonuses in advance of selling anything. Solyndra got what it deserved.

Neech | 8 April 2013

@Mel - I thought Fox fired her too, but the video in the link above shows her on Fox Business. Looks like she is still on the Fox payroll.

alanwwebb | 8 April 2013

"Solyndra got what it deserved"

Yup. They were a failure, part of the acceptable risks of the program.

PorfirioR | 8 April 2013

I would normally not waste my time talking about Sarah Palin but, unfortunately, those talking points seem to be common among other politicians (i.e. Romney).

There are many facts and inconvenient truths ignored in the positions taken by these politicians. It amounts to wishful thinking of the click-your-heels three times kind. The United States should invest in any and all technology that would give the country not only energy independence but technological superiority at the same time.

If that competition involves China, a notorious currency manipulator and sponsor of government-backed industrial spionage, sabotage, and the like, I feel that our Government would be irresponsible not to get involved (Romney agreed with that). This is an industrial cold war that we are in, but people like Mrs. Palin cannot understand that involves...well... the government...and simply focus on what fits in a tweet, which conveniently matches her attention span.

Aside from the politics, the economics of Tesla and EV vehicles - the macro-economics, not the $500/month smoke-and-mirrors stuff - are also conveniently ignored by nuts like Palin. Tesla is a new American car company employing Americans and growing even while the country is in dire economic times - that's stuff worthy of a parade led by Captain America himself. The nay-sayers like to point out the $465M DOE loan as a hand-out when in fact the government is being repaid and that "investment" (yes, I called it an investment) helped create jobs and commerce that themselves generate tax revenue. The impact of that $465M DOE loan is far greater than that number, but that kind of thinking is too sophisticated for someone like Sarah Palin.

Teslation | 9 April 2013


The most important thing Tesla can do politically right now is simply post the truth on their website/blog about how many direct and indirect jobs they have created. And how much in direct taxes and indirect tax revenue this provides the treasury. TM should keep a year by year and cumulative total.

TM should also track and proclaim how much imported oil they displace, and how much money this equals and how that money now stays in the USA stimulating our economy instead of going overseas.

So other than set the record straight, I wouldn't give much attention to SP or other types just looking to get clicks by starting partisan arguements that are not based on rationality and/or accurate information/data.

alanwwebb | 9 April 2013

@PorfirioR +1

Mel. | 9 April 2013

Backmann , Santorum, Huckabee etc. really hurt the debate in this country, like Palin the News Media loves to cover their stupidity.

Brian H | 9 April 2013

Acceptable risks do not include complicity in top-down corruption benefiting big party donors. I recant. Solyndra got much better than it deserves.

Mel. | 9 April 2013

Brian H, you are using logic in your discussion, however , those are the other side have religion on their side.. In other words " it is not worth the effort" .

alanwwebb | 9 April 2013

"complicity in top-down corruption" Lovely language, but logic? Hardly. Facts? No. Funny to see you siding with Sarah.

Check this out. Here we all are laughing at Sarah Palin, but the main accusations of government croneyism in the loan program come from “Throw Them All Out,” by conservative writer Peter Schweizer - a member of Sarah Palin's team. So much for logic.

Fact Check says it's bunk , and that some loans and grants went to companies run by Democratic donors, some went to Republican donors as well.

There's no evidence of croneyism anywhere. In fact, the DOE's inspector general says,"None of the cases that resulted in convictions for Recovery Act fraud related to the directing of contracts or grants to friends or family."

Even the Washington Post, after an extensive investigation, said, "The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors."

David Trushin | 11 April 2013

A couple of things. Joshnd03, yes Fey made that comment. But it was based on a comment from Palin that you could see Russia from parts of Alaska, which I believe is true, but hardly relevant to her foreign policy experience, the context in which the comment was made.

On Solyndra, a major factor in its failure was the unfair dumping of solar equipment in the US by China. (and inferior technology too) It in fact was pointless for our government to lend money to support an industry that it was also undermining through failure to enfore trade policy.

On Cronyism, Is there a business person or entrepeneur that is not a "crony" of some politician or other? I suspect that if I give money to your crony, pretty soon that person will become my crony. The only factor determining crony capitalism is whose controls the purse strings at any given time. And that is not always the party in the White House. Point in fact, Solyndra started as Bush's crony but is commonly regarded as Obama's crony.

alanwwebb | 11 April 2013

"through failure to enfore trade policy."

Spot on. Thus, China is getting ahead of us in a crucial area once again.

Brian H | 11 April 2013

Enforcing protectionism is the road to high-priced irrelevance.

alanwwebb | 11 April 2013

Fair trade policy is not protectionism. You know better than to say that. The Chinese are not competing fairly in an open market. instead, they are heavily subsidizing their own companies to get controlling interest in important sectors. They are breaking the rules. They're very good at it.

David Trushin | 11 April 2013

It's easy to come up with a short clever saying that appeals to people who don't want to take the time to understand the issues. However, I believe that what people on this forum know is that America's strength is bringing new, innovative techniques and technologies to bear to provide the future direction for the world. We did it with manufacturing technology, with computer technology, networking and other things. Where enforcing trade laws with other countries comes in is in not allowing them to dump in our markets, thereby stifling the kind of innovation that we are best at. They do this on purpose. Just like Walmart will go into an area and put all the other stores out of business by using their economic clout, China is trying to put our solar energy companies out of business. They will do the same with electric cars and anything else that they can. What we can do is try to match them. We can't manipulate our currency to do to them what they are doing to us, but we can introduce tariffs and subsidies to make what they are doing less effective.

I am picking on China, but they are not the only ones. Just the biggest. I don't view this as protectionist. I view this as competition. They are the ones stifling competition, not us.

Mel. | 11 April 2013

David, A123 went bankrupt, my understanding is that Johnson Controls was a lock to buy the company, however the Administration stepped in and A123 was basically given to a chinese government company. Now A123 was a company with a lot of R and D into battery technology. Any idea how this helps?

David Trushin | 11 April 2013

After looking this up on the interwebs, i found out that the sale was approved by a bankruptcy judge because the chinese company outbid johnson controls in dollars. In addition the r&d was purchased by an american company which is going to expand this effort to develop new battery and energy technology on behalf of the u.s. government (and for their benefit as well). I don't see a problem with this.

Brian H | 12 April 2013

If solar panels are now a commodity with declining price, no one can escape the cost pressure. Chinese solar companies are going bust too, because of over-building. At this point, every latest greatest is obsolete before the factory is finished.

FLsportscarenth... | 12 April 2013

From a longtime Republican: Sarah Palin is a major embarrassment...!