Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, I did. Around 18:30. But here it is again:

Consumer reports credibility is out the window. http://on.wsj.com/18x6eeS

Tesla makes its profit from government subsidies http://bit.ly/12hDfIF

Tesla's "green" credentials are based on fraudulent EPA ratings http://onforb.es/pNTWam

Nothing you cited says Consumer Reports' credibility is out the window. If anything your link says that Motor Trend agrees.

The government subsidy claim is false. Those credits are paid by other car manufacturers, not the government. And thank you for pointing out that the revenue jumped by $532 million vs. last year. Even if the credits are important, they won't matter by next year after such outstanding growth.

Lastly, your EPA article points out some debatable points about MPG calculations. But who cares, look at the sticker in your example. Annual fuel cost: $561. The average new car uses $1900 in gas per year.

Thank you for providing these links. They completely destroy your point.

The WSJ is known for it's lack of credibility, as is Forbes. LOL

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for providing these links. They completely destroy your point.

I'm sure that it is a surprise to nobody that the provider of those links -- the quoter of The Blaze -- is the poster who said that George Soros sent Jews to concentration camps. Of course, she has no credibility.

Anonymous wrote:Um, I did. Around 18:30. But here it is again:

Consumer reports credibility is out the window. http://on.wsj.com/18x6eeS

Tesla makes its profit from government subsidies http://bit.ly/12hDfIF

Tesla's "green" credentials are based on fraudulent EPA ratings http://onforb.es/pNTWam

Nothing you cited says Consumer Reports' credibility is out the window. If anything your link says that Motor Trend agrees.

The government subsidy claim is false. Those credits are paid by other car manufacturers, not the government. And thank you for pointing out that the revenue jumped by $532 million vs. last year. Even if the credits are important, they won't matter by next year after such outstanding growth.

Lastly, your EPA article points out some debatable points about MPG calculations. But who cares, look at the sticker in your example. Annual fuel cost: $561. The average new car uses $1900 in gas per year.

Thank you for providing these links. They completely destroy your point.

Anonymous wrote:Um, I did. Around 18:30. But here it is again:

Consumer reports credibility is out the window. http://on.wsj.com/18x6eeS <-- This blog post says nothing about Consumer reports' credibility

Tesla makes its profit from government subsidies http://bit.ly/12hDfIF <--- Not really

Tesla's "green" credentials are based on fraudulent EPA ratings http://onforb.es/pNTWam <--- super questionable blog post torn apart in the comments section

Seriously, get a life. Or learn to think critically instead of having the Blaze make your decisions for you.

Um, I did. Around 18:30. But here it is again:

Consumer reports credibility is out the window. http://on.wsj.com/18x6eeS

Tesla makes its profit from government subsidies http://bit.ly/12hDfIF

Tesla's "green" credentials are based on fraudulent EPA ratings http://onforb.es/pNTWam

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you start quoting The Blaze, you've massively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

Blaze sums up the WSJ and Forbes. You have an issue with them too?

Then why don't you quote those reputable publications instead? Is it because they don't spoon feed you the conclusion you want to make?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think once you start quoting The Blaze, you've massively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

Blaze sums up the WSJ and Forbes. You have an issue with them too?

LOL. What a joke. The world needs a publication that summarizes WSJ and Forbes? How low can your IQ go?

Anonymous wrote:I think once you start quoting The Blaze, you've massively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

Blaze sums up the WSJ and Forbes. You have an issue with them too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, 18:47, no one is making you buy the car. People are excited by technology, and it's going to progress with or without your approval. You can fart into the wind here all you want, but it seems like a waste.

I don't care who buys the car, but make no mistake, I already bought one as my tax dollars DID subsidize it and allow it to post a 'profit' first year.

Your contribution to the loan, which Tesla is repaying early with interest, was $1.49 At current rates, I suppose the government should pay you 7 cents of interest.

You do understand that Tesla would not have made a profit this year without subsidy right?

You apparently do not understand accounting. A loan does not count as revenue.

I think once you start quoting The Blaze, you've massively lost whatever argument you were trying to make.

"esla also said in the filing yesterday that sales of so- called Zero-Emission Vehicle credits from its electric cars jumped to $40.5 million last year from $2.7 million in 2011.
California’s environmental rules require large automakers to sell a certain number of electric and plug-in vehicles in the state annually. Those that fall short can buy such credits from companies such as Tesla that generate more than they need.
From the article:

Wait, wait — Tesla has made roughly $37 million since 2011 from selling credits? Who have they been selling these credits to?

“Ahuja declined to identify which companies bought Tesla credits, and the carmaker didn’t disclose details in its annual report,” Bloomberg notes.

Huh.
"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, 18:47, no one is making you buy the car. People are excited by technology, and it's going to progress with or without your approval. You can fart into the wind here all you want, but it seems like a waste.

I don't care who buys the car, but make no mistake, I already bought one as my tax dollars DID subsidize it and allow it to post a 'profit' first year.

Your contribution to the loan, which Tesla is repaying early with interest, was $1.49 At current rates, I suppose the government should pay you 7 cents of interest.

You do understand that Tesla would not have made a profit this year without subsidy right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, 18:47, no one is making you buy the car. People are excited by technology, and it's going to progress with or without your approval. You can fart into the wind here all you want, but it seems like a waste.

I don't care who buys the car, but make no mistake, I already bought one as my tax dollars DID subsidize it and allow it to post a 'profit' first year.

Your contribution to the loan, which Tesla is repaying early with interest, was $1.49 At current rates, I suppose the government should pay you 7 cents of interest.