It does not matter who becomes President. Westport will do well because the U.S. is moving toward natural gas adoption for energy independence, security, and climate concerns. The macroeconomics are already baked into the equation for WPRT's success.
Re: Basic research versus Solyndra Crony Capitalism
gj0084, You said Romney wouldn't say he is for "basic research" out loud. Of course he would. He has always been for basic research. He says it right on his campaign website. There is a big difference between funding basic research at the University level with limited dollars, something that the USA has always done, versus funding political crony companies with billions of dollars such that Obama and Energy Secretary Chu have recently been doing.
Solyndra is particularly galling, because not only did Obama and Chu ignore warnings from economic advisor Larry Summers and others from the beginning that Solyndra was a bad bet that potentially faced financial trouble, but Obama and Chu later doubled down by restructuring the original loan to put taxpayers interests at the end of the line behind insiders in the event of a bankruptcy. So taxpayers got back zero dollars when Solyndra went bankrupt. Yet there is a provision in the green energy loan program that says taxpayer loans can't be subjugated to other creditors interests like this. Energy Secretary Chu incredibly argued that this provision helping to protect taxpayers only applies to the original loan, not to a restructured loan. Any person in the private sector would have gone to jail for relying on Chu's wild interpretation to screw a protected creditor like this, in this case us taxpayers, but officials in the Obama administration are routinely able to do anything they want without the lapdog press nor justice department holding them accountable for their actions.
As I substantiated in two posts below, Romney wanted to help the auto industry get back on its feet for the long term while at the same time protecting taxpayers' interests in the process. Obama focused on giving UAW whatever they wanted to shore up his union voting base for the next election, while displaying a total lack of respect and regard for taxpayers' interests in the process, as well as doing very little with regard to reorganizing GM for long term competitiveness.
<<It (auto bailout) worked out in a win-win (for taxpayers and auto industry).>>
No, it didn't. Taxpayers, for no other reason than Obama was more interested in bailing out UAW workers for the short term than he was interested in putting GM and the auto industry on sound footing for the long term, are now likely to lose 42 billion dollars or more on the auto bailout. I have breaking news for you: A $42 billion dollar loss for taxpayers is not a win for taxpayers.
When GM was trading at $20.18 per share last November, Treasury released a report estimating taxpayer losses at 23.6 billion dollars. $20.18 is within today's trading range for GM, so we will take the Treasury's own 23.6 billion taxpayer loss estimate as the starting taxpayer loss number.
Teasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses on GM Bailout Are Going to Be Massive
Then there is the foregone treasury tax revenue of approximately 18 billion dollars resulting from Obama unnecessarily gifting GM $45 billion dollars in carry forward tax losses. Normally, "When companies enter bankruptcy, carry-forwards disappear or are greatly limited under IRS section 382, which kicks in when ownership changes by more than 50 percentage points".
The Other GM Bailout: The $18 Billion Dollar Tax Gift that Obama and the Treasury Did not Mention
So there you have it: Taxpayers losing about 42 billion dollars (23.6B + 18B) at today's GM stock prices on the auto bailout, all because Obama looked out for the short term wants of UAW workers in the bailout rather than looking out for the long term needs of the auto industry and the long term needs of taxpayers.
But you've proven my point. It wasn't wrong to ask the government for help and it worked out in a win-win. That's exactly what happened. Bush and Obama used the power of the federal government to step in when private investment was no where to be found.
And I love this little tidbit from the article:
"I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. "
Doesn't that make Romney a socialist, which we no is a very bad thing (for some reason). Of course, today, he would never say such a thing out loud. He would be tossed as candidate and replaced.
But that is exactly the kind of thing that Obama does and the right wants to try him for treason.
Gj0084, The lamestream press, who are in Obama's re-election corner, have succeeded in giving many Americans the impression that Romney wanted to just let the auto industry be liquidated and go away. That is a flat out false. Romney recommended a managed bankruptcy to include restructurings that would help the auto industry re-emerge stronger than ever. (See the link to Romney's original 11/18/08 NY Times op-ed below).
Romney, who is one of the most successful company turnaround experts in the world, recommended that the Federal government stop spending more good money after bad money by perpetually propping up the auto industry with Federal loans, such that both first Bush and then Obama were doing for a period of time, and instead, go to a managed bankruptcy. Where Romney says Obama finally took Romney's advice, is that Obama did finally move to a managed bankruptcy.
Where Obama did not take Romney's advice, is with regard to the restructurings that took place during the managed bankruptcy. Obama was intent on rewarding his UAW political contributors at any cost, (even if this help eventually proves to be short term in nature), so he did, and he set normal bankruptcy law on its head to do it. Obama and Rattner missed the opportunity to make restructurings that would have put GM on much sounder footing going forward than actually happened. UAW did make some concessions, but not enough. Even Steve Rattner, the Obama appointee in charge of the reorganization, now admits that he failed to go after enough concessions from UAW during the reorganization. Had Romney managed this turnaround with his extensive company turnaround expertise rather than Obama from his politics point of view, I have no doubt GM, including its UAW workers, would have emerged stronger and more competitive for the long term than they actually did. Moreover, taxpayers would not have emerged approximately 42 billions dollar poorer for the effort as they have under this Obama reorganization. Taxpayers' losses in GM have been growing nearly every day since the GM IPO.
Here is Romney's actual op-ed below. Romney is clearly is in favor of a managed bankrupty to include restructurings for the auto industry to re-emerge stronger. He clearly says the auto industry is vital to our national interest. He says it is not wrong for the auto industry to ask for government help, but that government help must be undertaken in a win-win manner for both the government (taxpayers) and for the auto industry.
"His op-ed at the time suggested the Feds stop plowing taxpayer money in to the industry and go straight to a bankruptcy..."
Yep. That was his suggestion. But you failed to mention that not one single private entity was willing to put their money on the line to take the auto industry through bankruptcy. You seem to have forgotten the shear panic that swept the nation at the time. The only way for a structured bankruptcy was for the Federal government to put up the money.
And it worked.
So had we stuck with exactly what Mitt wanted to do, we'd have no American auto companies. Get over it.