[Matman]

Pouring government money into private businesses is never a good investment. It is far better to simply keep taxes and regulations to the minimum necessary levels and let private businesses compete with each other. The free market does a much, much better job of picking winners and losers than politicians like Obama are capable of doing.

"Stimulus" grants to a company that was already $803 million in debt is not a good idea, IMO. What was the real motivation behind the grant? Does Celgard have competitors who are more profitable, perhaps in a Republican Congressional district? Does the grant make it more likely that Charlotte (which is narrowly Democratic) will vote for Obama in 2012 and would Celgard have received the grant had the city voted 60 percent Republican? Will the company's CEO, an Obama supporter, be appointed to some position in Obama's administration?

These are the types of questions that must be asked whenever the federal government "invests" in a private company.

Ethanol is a great example of how government does more harm than good when it tries to pick winners and losers. Originally, ethanol was supposed to be a clean alternative to gasoline. In reality, ethanol may produce worse pollutants than gasoline and the plants that produce ethanol also produce much more pollutants, including some carcinogens, than were anticipated. So, the federal government is subsidizing a fuel that is at least as dirty as gasoline, which costs more than gasoline to produce, and can actually damage engines.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

One of the reasons that I believe that Obama and his fellow socialists are trying to destroy the private economy is the assault on the coal and oil industries. Electric engines may be a fine idea provided that charging stations become conveniently available for longer trips, but if the nation switches to electric cars, where will all of the additional electricity come from to meet the greatly increased demand?

There is currently no viable alternative to coal and nuclear power plants. Obama has closed this nation's only nuclear waste facility, so he does not seem to be serious about expanding our nuclear energy capacity. Coal is under attack by Obama. Spain's attempt to increase its wind-generated electrical capacity has been a disaster and it has damaged Spain's economy and made Spain a leading candidate to become Europe's next Greece. Wind energy is not ready for prime time, so from where will the additional power for electric vehicles come?

Simultaneously destroying our conventional electrical energy producing capacity while aggressively pursuing the adoption of electric cars that will increase electrical consumption cannot have a positive impact on the economy.

"Investment," when used by charlatans like Obama is nothing but a euphemism for taxing and redistributing wealth.

I disagree with the first part of your statement. I believe when the total social benifit and marginal social benifit per individual is greater than or equal to the cost than it is worthy of government funding. Grants should help usher us into new technologies. Grants should also allow businesses to adapt to new regulations. If Obama is going to shut down our coal production he should subsidize the industry. He should help us create a new industry. While i believe in capitalism we are not a pure capitalist market. We are a mixed market. However i agree with the main point of your post. Our elected officials are in no way experts. Most of them wouldn't be able to work at Wal-mart if it wasn't for the fact they come from wealthy privileged families. They do not have the experience, skills or knowledge to make some of these choices. This is where they need to work with the industries.