TELSA CEO BUYS $17 MILLION MANSION

[Whirlaway]

TESLA CEO BUYS $17 MILLION MANSION; GOT $465 MILLION GOVT. LOAN

by WYNTON HALL

Taxpayers footed the bill for a $465 million loan to troubled electric carmaker Tesla as part of President Barack Obama’s “green energy” stimulus. But Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk is now riding high with the purchase of his new $17 million mansion.

Mr. Musk’s 20,248-square-foot hilltop mansion boasts breathtaking views, a two-story library with rolling ladder, a home theater, and a five-car garage to house his taxpayer-subsidized, pricey Tesla vehicles.

In September, the New York Times reported that Tesla had burned through cash and missed production targets, raising “questions about the long-term viability of the company” and igniting “ criticism of the government’s energy loan program, which has been heavily promoted by the Obama administration.” But Tesla says it has begun making payments on its government loan ahead of schedule.

Mr. Musk, who contributes to both Democrats and Republicans, donated over $100,000 to Mr. Obama’s 2012 campaign.

The Tesla Model S has a starting price of $57,000. Last quarter, Tesla produced just 359 cars.

[WTF]

Is that home in Pebble Beach 17 mile drive?

The new four door Telsa looks great. I talked to an owner at a eatry and he loved it, said it got around 220mil a charge and had power to spare.

I like to other brand but can't think of it at present.

[CJ7]

SOLD OUT !!! Get in line .

6,500 people put down a $5,000.00 deposit ... 5,000 will be produced next year.

at $60,000.00K a car, thats 39$ million ... time to upgrade the mansion.

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2011/...-out-for-2012/


As for repaying the loan, Musk says the company has never asked for any delays and has made its payments on time. The Energy Department has asked if Tesla would be willing to repay its loan early if it has excess cash.
"We will be initiating an advance payment today to prefund the principal payment that is due in March 2013," Musk says."We have a duty at Tesla, having accepted this loan as a portion of our capital, to repay it at the earliest opportunity. We will do exactly that."

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06...226-1-million/

[Yssup Rider]

"Footed the bill for a LOAN?"

OK. How is that bad? Would you have rather Congress LOANED the money to you, DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR?

Oh, the OUTRAGE!!!!!

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR STRIKES AGAIN!

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

TESLA CEO BUYS $17 MILLION MANSION; GOT $465 MILLION GOVT. LOAN

...Tesla says it has begun making payments on its government loan ahead of schedule.

So what's the problem?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by BigLouie

So what's the problem?

tha same problem as always ... whirlie leaves out 90% of the truth

[Guest040616]

It's official, WhirlyTurd has gone beyond "Trending" lunatic.

He has fallen off of the cliff!

[CuteOldGuy]

Sounds like he didn't need the loan. He's using my money for leverage. He could have gotten a real loan from a bank. I wonder what the terms of the loan are.

Will the interest he pays cover the interest we will pay when we have to pay back the money we borrowed to loan him? Where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government can gamble with our tax money?

You dipshits just don't get it. It's hopeless.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government can gamble with our tax money?

The same place it says Congress can gamble our tax money on education, space exploration, GPS systems and what have you.

Article 1, Section 8.

Congress has the power of the purse strings. Like it or not, Congress can pretty much spend the tax money it raises however it wants.

Your remedy is to vote them out if you don't like their spending bills.

[gnadfly]

Musk was mainly in internet entrepeneur who made billions with PayPal and Youtube. There was a cable TV special on his life and his accomplishments at a young age. His Telsa motor startup was financed with his money. He did get interest and money from both Benz and GM. I don't know if those $ ultimately came from Uncle Same. He then got big money from Uncle Sam. His car had several innovations that made it investment worthy. There's been a lot of problems with ramping the car in full scale
because the company is more engineering than bringing the car to full scale production.

I hope he is successful with Telsa and SpaceX program.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

The same place it says Congress can gamble our tax money on education, space exploration, GPS systems and what have you.

Article 1, Section 8.

Congress has the power of the purse strings. Like it or not, Congress can pretty much spend the tax money it raises however it wants.

Your remedy is to vote them out if you don't like their spending bills.

That doesn't give them any authority beyond the bounds of the Constitution. According to James Madison, the guy who wrote the damn thing and ought to know what it means:

If it be asked why the terms "common defence and general welfare," if not meant to convey the comprehensive power which, taken literally, they express, were not qualified and explained by some reference to the particular powers subjoined, the answer is at hand, that although it might easily have been done, and experience shows it might be well if it had been done, yet the omission is accounted for by an inattention to the phraseology, occasioned doubtless by its identity with the harmless character attached to it in the instrument from which it was borrowed.

But may it not be asked with infinitely more propriety, and without the possibility of a satisfactory answer, why, if the terms were meant to embrace not only all the powers particularly expressed, but the indefinite power which has been claimed under them, the intention was not so declared? why, on that supposition, so much critical labour was employed in enumerating the particular powers, and in defining and limiting their extent?

That clause only grants Congress the authority to carry out the enumerated powers of the Constitution. If it meant anything else, the rest of the document is meaningless. The "general welfare" clause was never meant to give Congress carte blanche to do anything it wants.

The Constitution was originally a document designed to limit the power of government, and expand the power of the people. It has been severely deformed by clever lawyers and dishonest politicians.

Here is Madison's full letter:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...a1_8_1s27.html

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Your remedy is to vote them out if you don't like their spending bills.

Actually, you are wrong there, too. The Framers knew a democracy led to disaster, which is why they founded our government on law, the Constitution, and not the will of the majority. They understood that the majority would always vote themselves into dependence. They tried everything they could to limit the will of the majority when they went afoul of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

We should not have to vote them out. They should never have gotten in in the first place. Repeal the ghastly 17th Amendment, and see how much power will be returned to the states. Where it belongs.

[Yssup Rider]

Did you quote James Madison?

are you WK'ing again, Unaliar? for a slave owner who lived 200 years ago?

I don't give a fuck what he said then. He probably shat in a box and didn't have electricity.

Quit thinking quoting those fuckers makes you right.

it makes you a Bible thumper.

[CuteOldGuy]

Assup, I always knew you hated America and what she stands for. But what can you expect from the . . .

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013

ASSUP!!!

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That doesn't give them any authority beyond the bounds of the Constitution. According to James Madison, the guy who wrote the damn thing and ought to know what it means:

If it be asked why the terms "common defence and general welfare," if not meant to convey the comprehensive power which, taken literally, they express, were not qualified and explained by some reference to the particular powers subjoined, the answer is at hand, that although it might easily have been done, and experience shows it might be well if it had been done, yet the omission is accounted for by an inattention to the phraseology, occasioned doubtless by its identity with the harmless character attached to it in the instrument from which it was borrowed.

But may it not be asked with infinitely more propriety, and without the possibility of a satisfactory answer, why, if the terms were meant to embrace not only all the powers particularly expressed, but the indefinite power which has been claimed under them, the intention was not so declared? why, on that supposition, so much critical labour was employed in enumerating the particular powers, and in defining and limiting their extent?

That clause only grants Congress the authority to carry out the enumerated powers of the Constitution. If it meant anything else, the rest of the document is meaningless. The "general welfare" clause was never meant to give Congress carte blanche to do anything it wants.

The Constitution was originally a document designed to limit the power of government, and expand the power of the people. It has been severely deformed by clever lawyers and dishonest politicians.

I never said the welfare clause gave Congress unlimited power.

I'm saying that the SPENDING power, which they DO have, has very few restrictions on it.

Congress cannot spend to buy itself a power it does not already have.under the Constitution or to restrict the power of the states or to violate the rights of an individual. However, outside of those very limited boundaries, Congress has plenary power to spend tax money as it pleases.

The Constitution enumerates POWERS (including spending power), but it does NOT enumerate the OBJECTS of the spending power. That is for Congress to decide.

Madison was around when the second Congress started spending money on its very first public works project - the Montauk Lighthouse on the east end of Long Island.

There is no mention of lighthouses in the Constitution. And yet I don't recall James Madison writing any great letters in opposition to it.

Why is that? Perhaps because your cramped reading of the Constitution does not correctly reflect Madison's beliefs?