Will you help "the Idea" get produced in Indiana?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James Ryan on July 2, 2009 at 11:05am

Hi Sage, I'm curious. When was the last time you read the Constitution and its amendments? I read it every year and did it once Ginsburg announced she was retiring from the Supreme Court.

I think everyone should read it every year.

It does not outline rule sets. It makes rules for the Federal Government.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sage McGreen on July 2, 2009 at 4:47pm

Hi James,

I'm curious too, but in other ways that often get me in trouble. Am I in trouble now?

Yes, I have read the Constitution and it's amendments. I also read other books that help give me a diverse perspective. I'm not sure why making rules is different than outlining rule sets, but okay. Does the term template soothe you?

I got the term rule set from Thomas Barnett's book The Pentagon's New Map. I did mention his name in my earlier reply. Barnett has actually thought a way out of a great many problems. His books are a must read for policy makers. You might enjoy his military mind.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James Ryan on July 2, 2009 at 5:41pm

Great Sage!

Isn't a template different than a document? I know it is in many software programs. The Constitution is a finished document (until amended for which there is a process delineated), not a template.

I really don't know what a "rule set" is. A set of rules? If that's it, then the Constitution is one, I suppose.

Maybe I'll read Barnett.

You said you have read the Constitution. When was the last time?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sage McGreen on July 2, 2009 at 6:00pm

Sometimes I "chuse" to go to this website to read and review the Constitution It was toward the end of Jan 09 while comparing and contrasting key bills in Congress.

To the best of my knowledge.

My curiousity is churning into something else .....feeling annoyed.
If you ask anymore questions I may decide to ignore you.

GO Bright Automotive!

Permalink Reply by James Ryan on July 2, 2009 at 11:00am

Ditto.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James Ryan on July 3, 2009 at 3:39pm

@Sage: Excellent.

I say "Go Bright Automotive" too! Just not with taxpayer money.

I know I ask a lot of questions. I appreciate your answers.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Weigle on July 1, 2009 at 4:42pm

I signed the letter and sent it to the DOE.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Taylor Martin on July 1, 2009 at 2:28pm

I've got $50 to invest. Where do I send it?

THM

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Weigle on July 1, 2009 at 2:40pm

I'll get you my home address ;)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Stuck on July 1, 2009 at 6:52pm

More money for another car company........is the other one making a profit that the taxpayers own?

Obvisiously investors are wary of this idea. If they weren't, this company wouldn't have to go to the government for a handout.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Weigle on July 2, 2009 at 1:48pm

I tried to quit this thread, but one more time I have to try to see if anyone understands what this is about.

This is not a handout, Bright Automotive is not asking for bailout money.

No one is going to pay additional taxes if Bright Automotive gets what they are seeking.

The government passed a stimulus package, we may pay higher taxes sooner or later because they did, but that has nothing to do with Bright Automotive.

These are government guaranteed loans from the Department of Energy designed to stimulate investment in Green Technology.

The government is making these loans to stimulate investment in high tech solutions to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. These loans are designed to build manufacturing facilities. These loans will be made to someone. If Bright Automotive is not included, the money will still be spent.

This is not a constitutional question. If you feel the constitution has been violated your anger should be pointed at the President, Senators and Congress who already appropriated a trillion dollars for this type of stimulus. But anything short of a repeal of the stimulus package laws(s) will not change what is going to happen. And again, this has NOTHING to do with Bright Automotive,

As I already outlined, billions have already been approved for loans to Ford, Nissan, and Tesla. None of those companies are the ones taking government bailout money.

Bright is not a company in bankruptcy, nor have they received or asked for bail out money. The bail out money went to GM and Chrysler (now Fiat).

This is not a case of a company that is in trouble from lack of investors.

Bright Automotive has designed a plug-in hybrid delivery vehicle that will reportedly get 100 miles per gallon. At the end of the day if this is approved Bright Automotive would be able to build manufacturing facilities more quickly, and deliver a fleet vehicle capable of reducing pollution as well as massively reducing the amount of oil burned everyday. And the money they collect would be used in or from Indiana. This would be possibly hundreds of millions spent on construction and manufacturing, right here.

If the government is going to loan money to build manufacturing capacity, why would anyone on Smaller Indiana want that money to go to other companies outside Indiana?

Why would anyone in Indiana want to see those manufacturing facilities be build in other states, possibly by foreign companies (like Nissan and Fiat)?

Once again, all of this would be accomplished without any taxes being used except what is already allocated. Additionally, since these are interest bearing loans, the funds would generate a profit for the government.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by James Ryan on July 2, 2009 at 2:01pm

Steve, you make our point: the loans are "government guaranteed". If it doesn't work and Bright goes under without repaying the loans who pays the tab? The taxpayers do!

If the ROI is there, as claimed by Bright's spokesman at the last Techpoint conference, the private sector would be beating their door down to fund them.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last