CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The omnipotent and omniscient government is here to the rescue, it proudly picks winners and losers, and in this case, sorry that is State Run Capitalism.
To say that it's blatant favoritism might be going too far just because that's something we can't really prove.
HOWEVER, be it favoritism or not, we can at least still see that it is wrong when government has the ability to choose losers in a situation like this.
I'm not sure you even read the article you're complaining about.
This is a private auto manufacturer that wants a $310 million government loan to build a police car that, according to one authority quoted in the Fox News article linked to the one you cited up-top, "makes no sense" and probably isn't a good use of taxpayer money in the first place. What's more, according to the source you cited, the big reason they didn't get the loan is that the government doesn't think there's a "reasonable chance" that the auto manufacturer would ever pay back the loan.
From the article you referred us all to:
"When Energy Secretary Steven Chu visited Indianapolis on Monday, he told reporters that the department wanted to go forward with the loan but that it has 'a responsibility to the taxpayers and they need to make sure it’s written in the statute that there's a reasonable chance of repayment.'"
So how is it "crony capitalism" when the government decides not to approve a $310 million dollar loan to a private auto manufacturer, in the middle of the worst recession in decades, because the government thinks there should be at least a "reasonable chance" that the loan will get repaid?
I'm not sure you even read the article you're complaining about.
Oh, please, get that weak shit out of here.
That is the whole point of crony capitalism, the government decides who wins and loses.
This same governmental Department of Energy loaned $535 million to Solyandra.
Where was the responsibility owned to the taxpayers on whether there's a reasonable chance of repayment? YET, Solyandra failed epically and filed for bankrupty.
The key difference is POLITICAL FAVORS. Solyndra made many friends in the Obama Administration while Carbon Motors obviously not. In the case of Solyandra, loaning $535 million was no risk at all.
The government shouldn't be giving out loans to anybody, that is the responsibility of banks.
Read the things you cite to before you post. You just look like an idiot otherwise.
"The government decides who wins and who loses"? We're talking about a loan from the Department of Energy, so yeah, I'd imagine that the Department of Energy does decide who can and can't have the Department's money. Um -- duh.
You must actually provide some evidence that the government acted out of favoritism to prove your point. So far, the only source you have says that the government refused the loan because they don't think it's likely to get paid back. Find some evidence to support your argument. So far you have presented no evidence -- you're just ranting.
"The government decides who wins and who loses"? We're talking about a loan from the Department of Energy, so yeah, I'd imagine that the Department of Energy does decide who can and can't have the Department's money.
Government is an political entity, so it stands as proof of an political agenda. Hence, the more money and power, the more control in deciding winners and losers.
You must actually provide some evidence that the government acted out of favoritism to prove your point.
Not only was there evidence provided through the example of Solyandra, but
The automaker’s CEO, William Santana Li, says his company is outraged by what it calls a “political decision in a highly charged, election-year environment,” caused by the fallout from the bankruptcy of Energy loan recipient Solyndra last fall.
P.S. This is from the article, the one which I read.
Government is an political entity, so it stands as proof of an political agenda.
That doesn't make any sense. The existence of government is not proof of a political "agenda" per se -- it's just proof of the existence of government. If what you mean to say is "government exists, and therefore it must be doing something" -- again, well duh.
Loans to Solyandra are not the issue you posted for debate here, and yelling "Solyandra" is not proof of government favoritism. You will now have to show that the Department of Energy did act out of favoritism (and not just plain poor judgment) in its loans to Solyandra, as well as in the loans it denied to Carbon Motors, in order to support your arguments. Thus far you have done neither.
And of course the CEO is "outraged." That's not evidence of favoritism either. That's the CEO making accusations of favoritism because he doesn't get $310 million in government money. So that is not evidence of anything other than a P.O.ed CEO.
You still have no evidence. But, at least you did apparently read a minimum of one sentence out of the article you pointed to.
Unfortunately, then the definition of government is beyond your understanding.
Government budgets are inherently political agendas because it is a set of issues and policies laid out by an executive or cabinet in government that tries to influence economic, social and legal matters.
You will now have to show that the Department of Energy did act out of favoritism (and not just plain poor judgment) in its loans to Solyandra, as well as in the loans it denied to Carbon Motors, in order to support your arguments. Thus far you have done neither.
As already aforementioned, it is the political favors. Apparently, you skipped over this part.
Solyandra executives donated $50,000 to $100,000 to the Obama campaign while Carbon Motors doesn't appear to have donated any money to the Obama campaign. Obama
Also, in the article, Carbon Motors spokesman Stacy Stephens tells FoxNews.com that the company was blindsided by the decision after being engaged in positive discussions with the government agency for the past 30 months, having recently been told by officials that it was “the number one priority of the Department of Energy.”
then the definition of government is beyond your understanding
That would be sort of surprising, because I have a law degree from a top-tier school.
You did proceed to state your point about government budgets much more clearly, though, so now your assertion is much more comprehensible. I will agree that government budgets are "political" in the sense of "pertaining to the body politic." That's neither here nor there on the issue of government favoritism, though.
You have also presented a bit of evidence, which is that Solyandra contributed to the Obama campaign whereas CM didn't. That's potentially relevant, but it's not enough to show me that the government acted with favoritism. Can you show a pattern of loan approval to campaign donors, or evidence of conversations about a secret "deal" between Solyandra and any government official? One incident where a campaign donor got a loan, plus one incident where a non-donor didn't, isn't enough to show that there's government favoritism at work.
Should be intimidated? Let me guess, you work for government.
That's neither here nor there on the issue of government favoritism, though.
Actually, it is here or there considering government can use government budgets for favoritism, it has been done before and it will do it again.
Can you show a pattern of loan approval to campaign donors, or evidence of conversations about a secret "deal" between Solyandra and any government official?
Oh please, whatever, that is unreasonable and impossible since I don't have access to back door deals between political friends within the government.
One incident where a campaign donor got a loan, plus one incident where a non-donor didn't, isn't enough to show that there's government favoritism at work.
Government is deeply rooted with favoritism, cronyism and nepotism.
"Favoritism has always been a complaint in government service. In 2002, a survey from the federal government's Office of Personnel Management found that only 36.1 percent of federal workers thought promotions in their work units were based on merit. (Government Executive Magazine, "Playing Favorites," by Brian Friel, October 2004). They believed that connections, partisanship, and other factors played a role.
Cronyism is a more specific form of favoritism, referring to partiality towards friends and associates. As the old saying goes, "It's not what you know but who you know," or, as blogger Danny Ferguson put it, "It's not what you don't know; it's who your college roommate knows." Cronyism occurs within a network of insiders-the "good ol' boys," who confer favors on one another.
Nepotism is an even narrower form of favoritism. Coming from the Italian word for nephew, it covers favoritism to members of the family. Both nepotism and cronyism are often at work when political parties recruit candidates for public office." SCU
Right, but what I'm saying is that you haven't presented any evidence that this particular instance is an example of government favoritism. All you've presented is evidence that the folks who aren't getting $310 mil are complaining of favoritism.
I'm not asking you to produce impossible evidence, just to present some evidence. Is it out there? Point me at it.
You say that favoritism is always something of a problem in government, ok, but again that's neither here nor there when it comes to this particular example of the CM loan.
You say it's favoritism; I'm just saying ok, show me evidence of that.
Not only the evidence of the personal contributions of Solyandra executives to the Obama campaign, but the article from the CSU about favoritism presence in government agencies.
Then, there is the lobbying of Solyandra where according to records filed with the Clerk of the House and a search of disclosure forms compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Solyndra spent nearly $1.9 million on lobbying activities over a period of 43 months from 2008 to 2011.
Plus, any disclosure of Solyandra's lobbying is prohibited.
"Under a policy first issued by the White House in 2009, federal agencies were required to disclose lobbying for stimulus funds. McBee Strategic Consulting, a lobby firm then under contract with Solyndra, said it had contacted the Energy Department in the first and third quarters of 2009 regarding the Recovery Act, according to records filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA).
Yet a review by The Hill of the more than 40 lobbyist contact disclosure forms regarding the stimulus posted online by the Energy Department reveals no contact between the department and Solyndra's lobbyists." Solyndra
Your SCU stuff wasn't evidence of favoritism, it was just a definition of various kinds of favoritism (and a pretty good one) and an assertion that favoritism is always a problem in governments. That doesn't provide any evidence for whether the CM loan is an instance of favoritism.
Really - show me a pattern here, and I'll agree that maybe it smells like a rat. You clearly try to stay informed on the topic of government lending. You've got one example where a contributor got funding and a non-contributor didn't, but absent the hard evidence of favoritism (like there's some big news expose with government documents and I just don't know about it), you're going to have to provide enough evidence that I can infer that this is an instance of favoritism. So can you show a pattern?
Your SCU stuff wasn't evidence of favoritism, it was just a definition of various kinds of favoritism.
Just because you claim it not as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.
Again, Favoritism has always been a complaint in government service. In 2002, a survey from the federal government's Office of Personnel Management found that only 36.1 percent of federal workers thought promotions in their work units were based on merit. (Government Executive Magazine, "Playing Favorites," by Brian Friel, October 2004). They believed that connections, partisanship, and other factors played a role.
If there is favoritism in employment, there is favoritism in all other areas of government.
Really - show me a pattern here, and I'll agree that maybe it smells like a rat.
I just did with Solyndra contributions, lobbying and nondisclosure of lobbying under LDA.
Just because you claim it not as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.
No, it's really not evidence. It doesn't mention CM. It cites to a worker survey from a decade ago. And it defines terms. That's not evidence of favoritism in dealings with CM.
The fact that favoritism is "always a complaint in government service" is not evidence of favoritism in dealings with CM. The study you cite is about employees who think that government departments play favorites in their promotion practices, not that the Dept. of Energy plays favorites in its dealings with outside businesses. It's a huge leap for you to say that one survey citing worker complaints of favoritism means that all of government is acting out of favoritism. That would be like me saying that because I know a conservative who once made a racist joke, all conservatives must be racists. Logic doesn't support that kind of an argument.
You did not show a pattern. One instance is not a pattern. You pointed to one instance where a campaign contributor got funding. How many loan applications were there, how many were granted, and how many of those were campaign contributors? Show a pattern.
Now, you have cited a news investigation that questions whether there is favoritism in government lending practices. So there's a question as to whether there is favoritism. But a question that there has been favoritism is not proof of favoritism, and it's certainly not proof of favoritism in dealings with CM. You've got evidence to raise the question, but it doesn't prove your point.
For clarification, the CSU article was not meant to prove anything for Carbon Motors case, but prove that government has the propensity for favoritism due to political agenda and favors.
Seriously, where my I going to get access to how many applications were there or how many were granted and those linked to contributions to show a pattern? This is really unreasonable.
Also, how could anyone link favoritism to government if closed door deals are sealed tight? All information concerning Solyndra scandal has been sealed shout by the Obama admin as aforementioned. Hence, it is a scandal, typically scandals are evidence of secrets, and sure it is only one instance, but all scandals are meant to conceal information and create closed door deals.
