Fox News can’t decide whether to love or hate electric cars

Oh the memories. In February, Fox News was busy bashing the electric car maker Tesla after some bad news about the company was reported.

During the campaign, Romney was completely against any government loans for the auto industry, and Tesla was part of the punching bag by the GOP.  Now Tesla has paid back its government loans early, and is making record profits. Oops.

Here’s Fox earlier this year, when it was all the rage in their world to bash Tesla.

The bad news for the GOP and their spin machine came recently when Tesla announced that they were paying back their federal loan early due to the success of the business. With that success came some convenient amnesia and distortion of the facts.

Now that another electric car company that received federal funding is on the ropes, Fox can’t help but use the moment as an example of a bad investment by Obama and the government. While stomping on Fisker Automotive because of federal loans is all the rage these days, Fox can’t get their attack message clear and are corrected by their Wall Street Journal auto specialist.

As I’ve said before, even in the supposedly perfect world of private investments, not every investment is a booming success. If it was that easy, everyone would be dropping money to invest. Back in the real world it simply doesn’t happen that way. Some investments deliver strong results while others break even and others fail. By suggesting otherwise, Fox is showing how little they know about the markets.

What is mysteriously missing from Fox are assaults on the annual tax subsidies to Big Oil, Big Pharma and Wall Street. Maybe shoveling billions each year to companies that have been around for 100 years makes sense to Fox but it’s a real head-scratcher for others. Startup money is one thing, but propping up companies that have been around for so long and deliver record profits (and “profits” are in the eye of the beholder with Wall Street) somehow isn’t worthy of discussion at Fox. Imagine that.


An American in Paris, France. BA in History & Political Science from Ohio State. Provided consulting services to US software startups, launching new business overseas that have both IPO’d and sold to well-known global software companies. Currently launching a new cloud-based startup. Full bio here.

Share This Post

  • Naja pallida

    The “nutty reg” on cruise lines is actually a very old law, dating back to the 1880s, preventing foreign flagged passenger vessels from servicing transportation between internal US destinations. Basically the same reason why there are no foreign airlines operating inside the US, just international routes. There isn’t an exception for one cruise line, Norwegian just happens to be the only cruise line that wanted to actually take the step of flagging their ships that service those particular ports as actual American ships. Whereas other companies prefer to flag their ships in the countries that give them the lowest tax rate, least safety regulations, and flimsiest labor laws.

    Not to sound like I’m defending the law, I think it’s tantamount to protecting corporations from competition. Which is essentially what our sugar subsidies/tariffs are too. We would rather pay billions in extra cost on real sugar (we pay some of the highest sugar prices in the world), and more to subsidize HFCS, and artificially protect our domestic production, than open the market and allow cheap foreign sugar into our market.

    At some point, military funding ceased to be about what the military wanted or needed but instead became some kind of make-work project for individual Congressional districts. There’s a reason why the production of the F-35 Lightning was spread over 45 states. It’s all about keeping votes in Congress, and has nothing to do with giving the military what it needs. Once you have that many Congressmen who want something for their district, it’s hard to kill it. Though, you would think that was the purpose of the Senate, to temper the idiocy of the House, but it never really seems to work out that way. This current crop of Senators have only compounded their lunacy.

  • benb

    And the M1 Abrams tank? How many billions of taxpayers’ dollars have been wasted on that piece of hardware that the Army doesn’t want but Congress insists on funding? Or the Sugar subsidy which costs us 3-4 billion a year (look in the WSJ for commodity prices…Sugar (World) and Sugar (US)). Or the nutty reg that Congress passed that makes all-but-one cruise line dock in a foreign port in any Hawaiian island cruise?

    Fox, I think, is the biggest waster of Taxpayer money. They have the opportunity, the staff, and the access to GOP lawmakers to really move the needle on butchering some sacred inside-the-beltway cows. But the money is in pandering to their viewers so Fox’s BS goes on…

  • Naja pallida

    They like to laugh at the fraction of a percent of the budget that is discretionary spending, that even if we cut it to zero, would mean absolutely and completely nothing in the long term debt issue… while completely ignoring the giant elephants sitting on their face.

  • Naja pallida

    Sadly, most people believe the same thing as your Senator, but my response to his absurdity would be: Why should government have to bribe the market to keep their product affordable to their consumers? Really, that’s all it is now. Government can’t even consider taking away the gifts they lavish on big oil, because they know big oil will just turn around and punish the consumer for it, despite having absolutely no financial reason to do so. They’ll just do it out of sheer spite, because they can. Which is really the only reason why gas has gone up in price. It isn’t because of some kind of shortage of supply, or “unrest in the Middle East” as politicians always like to try and claim. It is simply because they have absolutely no financial reason to bother finding ways to reduce prices or limit speculation.. Every time prices go up the late night talk show hosts make a few jokes, and the American public just keeps on paying.

  • VFanRJ

    My Senator from Utah champions these big oil subsidies for reasons I don’t understand. I sent him an email asking why and he said that it results is cheaper gas. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that oil is sold on the world market so subsidies will never result is cheaper pump prices.

  • http://www.facebook.com/monoceros.forth Monoceros Forth

    This reminds me of that little game that Republicans love to play of finding small and ridiculous-seeming items in government budgets and crowing about them. “LOL the government actually granted some silly biologists fifty thousand dollars to study duck sex, those gummint bureaucrats will throw away your hard-earned tax dollars on anything!”

  • clarenceswinney

    NEW–DEBT INCREASE/DECREASE
    % OF GDP BY TERM
    INCREASE
    GwBush-+7.1%–+20%
    GhwBush-+ 15%
    Reagan-+11.3%–+9.3%
    Nixon2/Nixon Ford–+0.2%
    DECREASE
    Roosevelt/Truman—24.4%
    Truman—21.7%
    Eisenhower—11%—5.2%
    Kennedy/Johnson—8.3%
    Johnson—8.3%
    Carter—3.3%
    Clinton—0.7%–9%
    Nixon—3.0

  • http://adgitadiaries.com/ karmanot

    “What is mysteriously missing from Fox are”—-little grey cells.

  • Riccardo Cabeza

    Conservative approval of tax subsidies to Big Oil, Big Pharma and Wall Street has always been baffling but Faux’s constant defense of abusive industries and institutions is simply unAmerican.

© 2014 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS