Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Motors Sued By Car Dealers
An anonymous reader writes "Car dealers in New York and Massachusetts have filed a lawsuit that seeks to block Tesla from selling its pricey electric vehicles in those states. The dealers say they are defending state franchise laws, which require manufacturers to sell cars through dealers they do not own. Robert O'Koniewski of the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association says, 'Those dealers are investing millions of dollars in their franchises to make sure they comply with their franchise agreements with the manufacturers. Tesla is choosing to ignore the law and then is choosing to play outside that system.'"
"To Help My Corporate Buddies."
When there is only one explaination is possible it has to be true.
Yeah. Like when Obama knows his fiscal policies will harm the nation because he is a very smart man. He also admitted knowing that raising taxes will not increase gov't revenue. He also knows that reducing gov't spending is the only permanent fix for the debt. He knows you cannot spend your way out of a debt problem. Study after study confirms these things. He knows that. He is extremely intelligent. But he does these things anyway.
The only single explanation is, he hates America and wants to see it fail. It is consistent with his "anti-colonial" brand of leftism. Obama is anything but incompetent. He is not a dummy. Not at all. We have people in the highest offices that want to see us fail. We're boned.
Funny thing is the rich are the ones who can afford to move someplace else. It is the poorest people who will be the most stuck here while our little nation collapses.
Cue all the idiots with their "yeah but republicans do bad stuff too, so there!" Pull your head out of your ass and realize finally that the two-party deal is there to make you cheerlead like you're at a pep rally and pretend "your team" can do no wrong because that means you don't call things what they are. Fucking sheeple. Fucking tool. This isn't a left vs. right deal. It isn't a black vs. white deal. They present it that way because you morons believe every word of it. It's a self-destruction vs. prosperity deal.
You must have voted for Clinton back then. He was the one who got the government's finances healthy, after Reagan and Bush sr.
Do you dare to take a look at the facts, in particular the graph?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton
Bert
The deficit is the bleeding. The rate of blood loss. The debt is the pool of blood on the ground. The cumulative AMOUNT of blood lost. You fixate on the stream of blood gushing out if you like. I'll look at the pool on the ground. That's what counts. The guy can lose a half a liter or even a liter of blood in a great scary rush and his body can still recover on its own if the rush is stopped at that point. When the loss hits two liters, the guy is in danger of dying unless he gets a prompt transfusion. There is no transfusion for nations. When the debt gets too colossal, about all you can do is hyper-inflate it away. It's still X number of trillion dollars, but if you want you can make that the price of an ice cream cone. But then you've got other problems (Weimar Republic, anyone?).
An aside. Federal budgets are reckoned in these moronic things called Fiscal Years just to confuse people. They run from October 1 to September 30. FY 2013 ENDS on September 30, 2012. It BEGINS on October 1, 2011. It works out that FY X is for practical purposes pretty much calendar year X. It's just offset by minus three months. OK ...
The following are deficits in billions of constant 1983 dollars. What year you pick doesn't matter. What matters is that you compare apples with apples.
Bush:
FY2001 75
FY2002 234
FY2003 302
FY2004 315
FY2005 283
FY2006 285
FY2007 241
FY2008 472
Obama:
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
"Bush raised the deficit and grew government during growth years. Obama lowered spending each year he was in office and shrank government during a recession."
Haha! Talk about Confirmation Bias.
The FACT that Bush left us with that deficit means that they were NOT "growth years". Though they might have been, if it hadn't been for him!
Administrative policies do (sadly, and in many ways unjustifiably) have an effect on the economy. If you are denying that, then you should not be discussing economics at all, because you don't live in the same world as the rest of us do.
"Raising taxes can most certainly raise revenues. Don't confuse your political ideology with actual economics."
Whose revenues? That is the relevant question here. And for that matter, whose economics? Warning: if you start spouting Keynes at me, I'm going to laugh at you.
"Cut back on spending and increase incoming revenue."
But GP has a valid point because the Obama administration has not done these things.
Mouse finger spazzed out, hit wrong button. Here is the real content:
The deficit is the bleeding. The rate of blood loss. The debt is the pool of blood on the ground. The cumulative AMOUNT of blood lost. You fixate on the stream of blood gushing out if you like. I'll look at the pool on the ground. That's what counts. The guy can lose a half a liter or even a liter of blood in a great scary rush and his body can still recover on its own if the rush is stopped at that point. When the loss hits two liters, the guy is in danger of dying unless he gets a prompt transfusion. There is no transfusion for nations. When the debt gets too colossal, about all you can do is hyper-inflate it away. It's still X number of trillion dollars, but if you want you can make that the price of an ice cream cone. But then you've got other problems (Weimar Republic, anyone?).
An aside. Federal budgets are reckoned in these moronic things called Fiscal Years just to confuse people. They run from October 1 to September 30. FY 2013 ENDS on September 30, 2012. It BEGINS on October 1, 2011. It works out that FY X is for practical purposes pretty much calendar year X. It's just offset by minus three months. OK ...
The following are deficits in billions of constant 1983 dollars. What year you pick doesn't matter. What matters is that you compare apples with apples.
Bush:
FY2001 75
FY2002 234
FY2003 302
FY2004 315
FY2005 283
FY2006 285
FY2007 241
FY2008 472
Total contribution to debt 2207 = 276 per year
Obama:
FY2009 879
FY2010 758
FY2011 550
FY2012 535
Total contribution to debt 2722 = 681 per year
The pool of blood belongs more to Obama than Bush, though neither one is a fiscal winner. And it's going to belong a lot more to Obama by the time the next four years passes and the two can be compared on an equivalent eight year basis.
Now, FY2009 (and 2001) don't really belong completely to their Presidents, because the budgets were passed during the term of the previous incumbent. OTOH, though the incoming Presidents could not have vetoed them, have could have changed them within 4-5 months, so they own them to a certain extent. Another monkey wrench is that the last two Bush years were with a Democrat Congress, so that awful last year is to an extent up for grabs.
My personal opinion? Neither guy and neither party is a winner. Bush left Obama an awful mess, but Obama hasn't cleaned it up with appropriate vigor, either. If you ask me about these two clunkers together, they have been a colossal unmitigated disaster for the American people. But you know what? The 200+ year bubble that was the American economy was due to burst anyway. And Congress gets at least half the blame. Some would say the House gets ALL the blame. Not a single dime can be spent that isn't appropriated by the House.
Reference:
http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
how can we say he lowered spending when we havent had a budget in 4 years?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Neither of the two parties even proposes lowering spending. They only propose cuts to INCREASES in spending.
There is a significant difference.
How do you like your fictitious world?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-0jv9kts
Liberty.