We broach the days where Elon may be a part of our government. What does he say as he’s about to work in the Department of Government Efficiency? (DOGE)
Odd coming from a man who benefited from electric vehicle tax breaks. When pressed about Musk’s history of suckling the government teet, here’s his response:
“SpaceX gets no subsidies and received half as much as Boeing for astronaut transport, but did 100% of the work. As for Tesla, take a minute to read our public filings and you will see that EV incentives represent a minor part of our revenue.”
How true is that?
If Musk is honest about receiving as much as Boeing, Boeing received over $15 Million from 963 contracts.
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent-totals
In 2014 Tesla’s Nevada branch received over $1 million. $750,000 in New York. $640,000 in Texas. Overall, Tesla received $41 million since 2008.
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/?company_op=starts&company=Tesla
Let’s reel it back to SpaceX. Over $2 million in Texas and over $800,000 in California. Overall, $19.8 billion since 2008.
https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/space-exploration-technologies-spacex
He is correct about Tesla benefiting if everyone got their subsidies cut. Elon already got his and if he can kill off competition, better for him. As per usual, the Conservatives are unskilled in hiding their true intentions. Musk helped Trump corner social media influence by taking over Twitter while the Heritage Foundation intercepted Facebook. Trump will ultimately compensate Musk by giving him free rein to pick the winners and losers of this competition.
Given his reputation of picking at details he doesn’t understand, overcompensating for his sheer lack of skill and understanding, it’s likely his personal crusade against competitors and wokeness will cost us astronomically.
Why such high amounts of money? Like real-life Tony Stark, much of their contracts are from the Department of Defense. SpaceX also contracts with Germany, the UK, Italy and Turkmenistan. So you can be assured that Musk lied about the subsidies granted to the companies to develop electric cars and space exploration.
Subsidies aren’t a new concept. The US provides nearly $100 billion a year to various companies. Folks at the Heritage Foundation describe welfare as “receiving regular assistance from the government or a private agency because of need.”
Large examples of subsidies include General Electric receiving 15 grants over $20 million. Rockwell International received 39 grants for over $25 million. Westinghouse Electric: 14 grants for over $26 million. This was recorded in 1996. Not much has changed if you reviewed Musk’s numbers.
Are subsidies bad?
Not at all. Subsidies are what allow projects to happen. Many of the U.S.’s transcontinental railroads were products of land grants, bonds, loans, and in other words, money and land. It’s no coincidence that Vanderbilt and JP Morgan were household names in the 1890s. Who marketed steel to a demanding construction quota? Who provided the bonds and loans?
https://www.biography.com/business-leaders/cornelius-vanderbilt
A lot of modern medicine, agriculture, and mining operations are funded by government subsidies. If this is a fact, then why do conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation demonize the hand that feeds them?
Why?
Why do corporations get leniency with PPP loans while students are shackled with debt they’re less capable of paying back? Why were auto industries and banks bailed out while little assistance was doled to struggling Americans? Why in 1929 did banks and factories get help, but not the working Americans who lost their homes and savings?
Ceasing total control of the government wasn’t enough for people like Musk. Look at Musk’s past actions to foreshadow how DOGE will operate if given as much power as promised.
We’ve been warned of how impulsive and reckless he is. The reason he purchased Twitter was not a calculated move. When he tweeted about acquiring Twitter, he held a 9% stake in the company. Tweeting about such a move has the possibility of spiking up a company’s value. This prompted the FTC to investigate whether he was manipulating stock prices.
The only way it wouldn’t be perceived as such is if he were to follow through on a promise he made. It would explain why he lost money acquiring Twitter. Anybody with common sense can tell you that losing money to buy a business is rarely worth it. For a calculated move, you’d suspect there’d be more haggling.
Refusing to bring up these questions is indicative of cult behavior. Accepting that Twitter is this value because Musk acted like it was abandons critical thinking. Is Twitter actually that valuable or maybe the businesses know better than your armchair economist?
However, Musk is a suitable pick for Trump. Who else could relate to bankrupting casinos and spending Daddy’s money? Who else but Musk?