A123 gets $249 Million federal grant

Hill and Prox, those posts were real eye openers. Thanks!

 

Your definition of "good" and mine appears to vary greatly. The statements you put forth as "facts" are really opinions. Opinions I happen to disagree with. Spending money on national defense is required by the constitution. Picking and choosing the "winners" in the private sector is not.

If you've never served in the military, you cannot even come close to determining whether or not the tax dollars spent on the military are "worth" it. The money spent on the military or (the Navy as you say) is not just to protect America's interest in oil. While that is important right now, the actions we take ultimately prepare us to defend America against any threat to our national security. It "keeps us sharp".

If you have served, Thank you for your service. Regardless, you are free to express your opinion and that is a right I (and many others) would lay down my life for.

This is simply a classic difference in opinion argument but the opinions you put forth should not be stated factually. I respect your opinion and I see the data you provided but they still remain opinions and not "facts". I happen to not share your opinion but I don't see how the "Navy" should come under attack for me putting forth my opinion. I'm not the Navy, I'm just someone who has served.

Furthermore, the comparison you make in your previous post is not valid. The Navy has no income. They are not a "for profit" organization. A123 is a private company. It is, simply put, an "apples to oranges" comparison.

Numerous "high technology" companies have been built in America w/out government intervention. Steve Jobs got no government intervention (that I'm aware of).

As for the high wages argument, in my view, high wages are one of the reasons for failing companies. The American worker is competing with the world workforce in today's global economy. High wages are not sustainable and are likely the cause of the bailout for GM and Chrysler.

The bottom line: You have your opinion, I have mine, let's agree to disagree but, lets tone down the hostility.

 

Hill, I completely agree with the sentiment, but ... This money is not for R&D it is to establish manufacturing for the good R&D that A123 has done. A123 has done a great job on battery R&D, but has been less successful in manufacturing the batteries, which means it has less private investment to invest in more manufacturing capacity. Perhaps the markets are deciding correctly that A123 does not need to expand, and making the terms easier are not necessary. There has been help for battery manufacture/assembly given to all the lithium battery players - nissan, tesla, ford, gm, and lg. This program is about american jobs not the technology. Panasonic and Toyota would also be able to get assistance if they would manufacture lithium batteries in the united states.

Absolutely agree here, but.... The japansese created a monopoly in nimh batteries which hurt american manufacturing competitiveness. The government on this as opposed to solyndra is picking Lithium battery manufacture as a key to changing the auto industry and reducing import of oil, something that is in the national economic security interest. This is a small investment and includes all companies that choose to manufacture in the United States.

Thank you for your service. Many that have served do not think we need as large a military budget as we have or as many foreign bases. When we use our military might to protect one opec country against another we are spilling blood and treasure for despotic rulers that are not our friends.

Agree absolutely here. Most would agree that the united states needs a military and it should not make money. Some of us think the budget is much too high, and the military should be a defensive one. The major enemies of the US are weak.

One of the threats to the US is Iran having a nuclear bomb and giving it to terrorists though. The government should be able to put strong sactions against them even if it raises the price of oil. To reduce the impact the US needs to use less oil. This investment in R&D and manufacture of plug-ins is part of the policy and is much less expensive and maybe more effective than foreign bases.

Agree the argument is a big time fail.

 

Hill's argument was in response to massparanoia's claim that the Navy is not bankrupt. Hill's point was that an organization that perpetually spends Billions more than it produces is technically bankrupt or on its way to bankruptcy. Hill didn't suggest that we don't need a military force. That's taking his remarks out of context.

Hill also pointed out that a LOT of the money that is spent on defense proects is wasted. Besides the Osprey, just look at the hundreds and thousands of F16s, A-10s, helicopters and other aircraft sitting in mothballs in the desert. I see them with my own eyes quite often. Again, Hill's post had to do with how those huge military budgets are used, not whether money should be spent wisely on defense and other industries.

No country can have a strong military and a weak economy. Today, our economy is held hostage to foreign oil interests and the situation is getting worse. Spending money on more costly defense projects like the Osprey and building planes that sit rotting in the desert won't solve that problem. Investment in alternative energy in an effort to make us more independent and secure is a step in the right direction.

BTW: Waste isn't confined to the military - wasting money on Wall Street Banker bonuses is also a step in the wrong direction.

 

The military as currently used, is a for profit industry, profit of the corporations, thus the cost overruns, wasted projects, pseudo military force hired to conduct major operations, and on and on. As a military force, it is being used to suck taxpayers dry, not protect the country.

 

Great generals disagree with you.

Washington in that it is up to the people, not just the few in the military. It was this principle that he made sure was wrought into the US Constitution.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.... Is there no other way the world may live?â€
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

All military spending must be justified. Not much in US $1.3T per year military budget is justified by real threats especially when securing Middle East oil fields is removed.

The Pentagon disagrees since securing Middle East oil fields is the No. 1 contingency threat to US national security upon which US military planning and spending is based.

Interesting you mention computers since both the computers and internet are the result of government funded research because it is the interest of everyone but often not in the self interest of any individuals.

Washington pushed the US to invest in many industrial projects as worthwhile investments for the nation.

Much American history and history in general from Egypt to Greece to Rome, much of the technological advance has been financed by the government.

Think of energy research today equal to Manhattan Project during WWII, both are in response to the single biggest and most immediate threats to US national security.

 

Generals can disagree, the Pentagon can disagree, and yes, even I can disagree; that's what makes us great.

Certainly some of tech advancement you speak of was "pushed" by the same military spending you so vehemently disagree with. Is it ok for the gov't to research computers as long as you don't use them for defense? History has shown us that where there are resources (such as the genius scientists, a modern brick school, two electric power plants, fifty miles of concrete pavement, a half million bushels of wheat, homes that could house more than 8,000 people, or oil wells, gold, fertile land) conquerers will try to conquer. The founding fathers knew this all too well so they provided for the common defense in the preamble. If you don't have a strong defense, you will be taken over by someone who does (a large portion of Europe was almost Germany).

I do not believe good never comes from the gov't, I just disagree w/ the gov't picking winners and losers (and lately it seems mostly losers (GM, Chrysler, Solyndra and now A123). IMHO that is for the private sector to "figure out" not.

It is interesting that you rail against one arm of the gov't but prop up another. All gov't fails, GSA, Secret Service, Navy, DOE, POTUS. By and large, gov't is a failure. There will always be a haystack of examples of gov't failure in all branches and agencies. That's just the nature of the beast. There will be failures in the private sector as well.

This is an argument that will go on forever without a solution. It is caused by a difference in world view (what I deem important vs what you deem important).

Its been a great debate. I appreciate all the opines. Signing off

opcorn:

 

Except arguably two of our greatest generals, Washington and Eisenhower, were disagreeing with your comment that only those in the military could identify wasteful spending.

As Ike noted, military spending is, by definition, wasteful spending.

In case of last 30 years where 50-60% of US military spending was based on securing Middle East oil fields, that was 100% wasteful since it:

A. Had no chance of securing the Middle East oil fields.
B. Did not address the actual US national security threat of energy inefficiency and resulting oil imports.

Specifically to the A123 battery research and production, that was $249M spent directly addressing the No. 1 US national security threat while the $30B spent researching the V22 Osprey was total waste since the Osprey was built to address Middle East oil war issues yet it will not be able to "win" the strategic objective.

300 years of American history proves that to be wrong. Certainly right wing ideologues who view government as the problem (the people Washington feared the most as he pushed for a strong central government), when in power (Reagan, Bush et al) do end up being failures as leader but that is their fault not governments.

Great civilizations are known by what their "government" does, what the society collectively does from the library of Alexandria to the moon landing.

Government funding research for new energy technology to save the nation and the planet defines good government.

 

Thanks for your opinion (stated as fact). I still disagree