http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/.../mccain_energy

This is a great idea.
Course Obama and the Left will oppose it becasue they can't control it. Its relies on rewarding individual innovation which is contradictory to their belief system.

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"

__________________
McCain/Palin 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"Peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Keep that faith,keep your courage,stick together, stay strong,do not yield,do not flinch,stand up,we're Americans,we'll never surrender they will"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Thats a good idea. As an Obama supporter, I'll commend his efforts on attempting to get the country involved. I generally think Americans are set in their ways as far as the vehicles they drive, however I'd like to see what happens with this.

__________________
Your spin doesn't matter... I can slam revolving doors.

There's no need to give $300 million away like that.

If the battery was of enough economic benefit, then they would get what they deserved just from having the patent.

But there goes McCain again with his proposed government subsidies...
and people say he doesn't sound like a Democrat?

__________________

I PREFER carrots to STICKS.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

It's called an NIH grant. They don't give away 300 million, but they do give substantial amounts. People could get more from the private sector for something like this, there's no need for taxpayer money to do this.

White Fox

Thats not what it is. Its a reward for developing a battery . Its not a government subsidy. Thats precisely what he is going against with this.

"""In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success,""""


Also the tax credit is a reward.


////



E_Pluribus_Venom

Obama is simply shrugging it off and mocking it as not worthwhile. He's too invested with the Ethanol crowd.

__________________
McCain/Palin 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"Peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Keep that faith,keep your courage,stick together, stay strong,do not yield,do not flinch,stand up,we're Americans,we'll never surrender they will"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

In what way is a "reward" paid for by the government for a favored economic activity not a subsidy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

In economics, a subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. A subsidy can be used to support businesses that might otherwise fail, or to encourage activities that would otherwise not take place.

Subsidies can be regarded as a form of protectionism or trade barrier by making domestic goods and services artificially competitive against imports. Subsidies may distort markets, and can impose large economic costs.

There are many different ways to classify subsidies, such as the reason behind them, the recipients of the subsidy, the source of the funds (government, consumer, general tax revenues, etc). In economics, one of the primary ways to classify subsidies is the means of distributing the subsidy.

In economics, the term subsidy may or may not have a negative connotation: that is, the use of the term may not be prescriptive but descriptive. In economics, a subsidy may nonetheless be characterized as inefficient relative to no subsidies; inefficient relative to other means of producing the same results; "second-best", implying an inefficient but feasible solution (contrasted with an efficient but not feasible ideal), among other possible terminology. In other cases, a subsidy may be an efficient means of correcting a market failure.

For example, economic analysis may suggest that direct subsidies (cash benefits) would be more efficient than indirect subsidies (such as trade barriers); this does not necessarily imply that direct subsidies are good, but that they may be more efficient or effective than other mechanisms to achieve the same (or better) results.

Insofar as they are inefficient, however, subsidies would generally be considered by economists to be bad, as economics is the study of efficient use of limited resources. Ultimately, however, the choice to enact a subsidy is a political choice. Note that subsidies are linked to the concept of economic transfers from one group to another.

Economics has also explicitly identified a number of areas where subsidies are entirely justified by economics, particularly in the area of provision of public goods.

[edit] Direct subsidies

Direct subsidies are the most simple, and arguably the least frequently used[citation needed]. They involve a direct cash transfer to the recipient, for example an unemployed person or an agricultural corporation.

[edit] Indirect Subsidies

Indirect subsidy is a term sufficiently broad that it may cover most other forms of subsidy. The term would cover any form of subsidy that does not involve a direct transfer.

[edit] Labor subsidies

A labor subsidy is any form of subsidy where the recipients receive subsidies to pay for labor costs. Examples may include labor subsidies and tax deductions for workers in industries, such as the film and/or television industries. (see: Runaway production)

[edit] Tax Subsidy

A tax subsidy is any form of subsidy where the recipients receive the benefit through the tax system, usually through the income tax, profit tax, or consumption tax systems. Examples may include tax deductions for workers in certain industries, accelerated depreciation for certain industries or types of equipment, or exemption from consumption tax (sales tax or value added tax).

__________________

$300million prize.. hmm, a tiny sum considering the size of the US Federal govt's budget.

It's a gimmick, but I likes it! I'm always game for a good race. Tax credits are nice also.

On a side note, I'm noticing more of those Toyota Prius hybrids down here... actually not a bad looking car.

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

Here goes McCain again with his hair brain liberal schemes..
This is an idiotic GIMMICK that is wasting American tax dollars.

There are a couple of good reasons for the $300 million reward, if you consider the goal of the reward to bring a more efficient battery to market.

First, if the company that developed the battery was a small company (where a lot of great innovations come from) they would then have capital to start production of their new invention without having to rely on venture capitalists or larger companies. Large companies may very well purchase the technology to keep it from market, if they determine they can make more profit with their current products.

Secondly, it is a great incentive for companies to direct their R&D dollars for the development of a more efficient battery. There is only so much money for R&D and the potential benefits are the main consideration in determining where the R&D dollars are spent. An immediate $300 million reward is a pretty nice incentive.

I am glad to see this type of thinking from a presidential candidate. It rewards tangible success over good presentation skills. Too bad Obama won't support it since "the other guy" came out with the idea first.