Print 110 comment(s) - last by xti.. on Oct 10 at 2:42 PM

Chevrolet Volt
Bush signs bill which grants the Volt a $7,500 tax credit

In mid-September, DailyTech brought you news that congress was working on a new round of tax credits targeted at plug-in electric/hybrid vehicles. The tax credits were projected to weigh in at $3,000 for plug-in vehicles with at least a 6 kWh battery and top out at $7,500.

Toyota, which sells its Prius featuring a 1.3 kWh battery pack, balked at the tax credits as its hybrids wouldn't even qualify for the entry-level tax credit. Toyota also was unhappy that the only vehicle in the near future likely to qualify for the maximum $7,500 tax credit is the Chevrolet Volt.

Despite its opposition, Toyota's fears became law last week when President Bush signed the legislation which passed in the House by a vote of 263 to 171 as a part of the massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout package. The entire 10-year tax package for plug-in electric/hybrid vehicles is worth $1 billion.

Requirements to qualify for the tax credit have changed slightly since its inception in the Senate. The 6 kWh battery minimum dropped down to 4 kWh, while the base tax credit rose from $3,000 to $4,168. The maximum credit remains at $7,500 for the Chevrolet Volt with its 16 kWh lithium-ion battery pack.

The Chevrolet Volt gets its primary power from a 150 HP, 273 lb-ft electric motor. A 1.4 liter gasoline engine is also used to recharge the lithium-ion battery pack once the Volt's 40-mile battery range is depleted. According to GM, the Volt can save customers $1,500 per year in fuel costs based on a daily commute of 40 miles.

The $7,500 tax credit should go a long way towards making the Chevrolet Volt more affordable. Current estimates place the base price of the vehicle at $40,000 or higher.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not Enough at $699 Billion
By dreddly on 10/5/2008 9:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing like sticking in a little more to support a technology that will benefit a few at everyone's expense...

Using a crisis to subsidize this technology is a straightforward abuse and should be loudly chastised.

This is not the way to go about developing green technology.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2008 9:39:55 PM , Rating: 5
Just one of the many pieces of pork added to an already unnecessary and catastrophic piece of legislation.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Fnoob on 10/5/2008 10:03:41 PM , Rating: 5
Ain't it truly amazing that with the eyes of the whole country (and the world) fixated upon this bill... that they actually put ANY pork in there? It was deemed 'super duper important' that they got this bill passed by (hopefully) last monday before the asian markets opened - and they were spending time cramming 37 cent excise tax exemptions for Oregonian makers of childrens wooden arrows!

We pay these morons why?

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Gul Westfale on 10/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By MrSmurf on 10/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Samus on 10/6/2008 1:21:40 AM , Rating: 5
The Volt should be considered a luxury car. It's going to be pretty fast, its pretty light (compared to a Prius at least) and it's cutting edge. So, comparing it to a $20,000 car is like comparing a Audi to a VW, or a Volvo to a Ford. They're engineered by the same people and sometimes even come from the same factories, but they are completely different animals.

Have you not seen the inside of the Volt? It's like a life-sized iPod ;) Just so you know who this vehicle is targeting.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By paydirt on 10/6/2008 8:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
$20,000 to be officially cool. Not too shabby.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By silversound on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Doormat on 10/6/2008 12:12:51 PM , Rating: 5
At 13,000 miles per year (which is about what I drive), 2,000 of which is on gas and 11K on electricity, and assuming an average price of $4/gal between 2011 and 2018, I would not have to buy 440 gallons of gas per year (vs. the 25mpg vehicle I now own). Thats $1760 per year in gas not purchased, instead replacing that with $300 worth of electricity per year.

From there, add in the better fuel economy (48MPG Volt vs 25MPG my car) for the 2,000 gas miles, and thats $153/yr saved, for a total of $1,613 saved per year. At seven years thats $11,291. And remember that the battery is warrantied for 10 years or 150,000 miles, so really you could calculate the savings over 10 years, which brings it up to $16,130 over the 10 years for the battery.

Take a $40,000 Volt, minus $7,500 in tax credits is $32,500. Minus $11,291 is $21,209.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By bigboxes on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Lord 666 on 10/6/2008 8:12:40 AM , Rating: 5
Do you have a source for the .37 tax in plain english?

My favorite example of nonsense goverment legislation is within the PATRIOT Act is the verbiage to restrict sales of psedoephedrine.

We only pay them because average americans are too busy watching "dancing with the stars" or other mindless distractions to actually focus on what's really important.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Lord 666 on 10/7/2008 1:54:04 AM , Rating: 5
Researched it; the wooden arrow thing is on page 263 of this piece of poop

PS - the pseudoephedrine section of the 2005 Patriot Act is here on page 67

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By MrBlastman on 10/6/2008 9:56:29 AM , Rating: 2
You and I voted for them, that is why :P

You DO know why they put in that provision for wooden arrows, don't you?

It is so after the taxpayers digest what this bill really is, they can break those arrows in half and shove them up their tail ends and enjoy the splintering pain! ;)

disclaimer: This post does not indicate my support, or non-support of said bill; rather, it was done in pure gest.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By xti on 10/10/2008 2:42:02 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By xphile on 10/5/2008 10:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well I guess as you drive to your tax supported silicon valley job, where you make cpu chips that control huge tax incentivised wind turbines for tax supported wind farms, safe in the knowledge that you are now both safe from the alternative minimum tax that threatened to plague you and that all your life savings are safe in the bank, it would be quite easy to justify a $7500 tax supported 30 thousand volt oops I mean dollar new car so your kids have someplace safe from which to fire their new tax-free wooden arrows at the neighbors...

It really smarts being a New Zealander when you Americans have life SO sweet .. damn!

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Totally on 10/6/2008 12:24:56 AM , Rating: 2
And here I thought it was us Americans that were bad at geography.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Samus on 10/6/2008 1:25:34 AM , Rating: 1
Just so you know Mr New Zealand, our country is somewhere between totally fucked and a depression right now, and over 80% of the American people haven't supported anything that's been going on in our government for years. We are powerless, and you're rubbing it in our face. So before you insult what little there is left to enjoy about our country, eat shit.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By andrinoaa on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Ringold on 10/6/2008 3:25:07 AM , Rating: 5
.. the market, look what the market has done to you guys.

Okay, let me see what it's done for us, by comparing it to a place where capitalism dare not tread, say.. France.

GDP PPP: 40% higher
Unemployment: 1.1% points lower
Average Unemployment: ~5 to 6% points lower
Average home size: Hard time finding European data, but the difference appears to be huge. It's 2349sq-ft here, as of 2004.

Whats the downside? A cyclical economy where the average Joe actually notices what is going on, where as in Europe the government attempts to compensate with fiscal stimulus, huge unemployment benefits, and by simply replacing a large portion of the economy with government jobs.

It also appears that European banks and other institutions are starting to collapse at an even brisker pace then here! Europe is also regulated to death. What good has it done Europe? Higher unemployment when the times are good, and now that times are bad, even higher unemployment with almost none of the pain being spared. Even European economists seem to agree with those of us on this side of the pond; the European economy is going to be in worse shape and for longer than the US due to the flexibility of our markets (labor as well as capital). We hit a cyclical hard spot, and all the weaklings come flooding out of the woodwork with their doomsday talk, like they always do.

I'd prefer socialists be honest. Lets not pretend socialism/aversion to capitalism means all the upside with none of the downside. It means, in a best case scenario, where government is perfectly competent and happens to get most things right, smoothing out some of the pain while permanently lowering the long run rate of economic growth.

America isn't an outlier in the more-capitalism example, either. Ireland and Switzerland are hanging right up in there, and it sure wasn't socialist reform that started India and China's growth spurts.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By andrinoaa on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 6:03:39 AM , Rating: 3
How many people are homeless

Many of our homeless choose to be. Because like in socialism, they have found they can survive by doing absolutely nothing. Some have turned panhandling into a career and own homes and drive nice cars.

have no health coverage

So I'm supposed to pay for it? In this country you have what you earn (or were born into unfortunately).

are incarserated

You do the crime, you do the time. No one forced people to commit crimes.

on minimal wages

That's what happens when you slack off in school. Again. No one's fault but their own.

How many homes now lay empty due to forclosure?

And it's my fault that someone who makes $2000 a month was stupid enough to buy a $300,000 home thinking it would work out? I'm sorry I guess I think people should use that thing called common sense and realize that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. And that people should actually read their mortgage before signing it. Yes Fannie and Freddie allowed these loans to exist by buying them from banks almost guaranteed. But if people had exercised basic common sense to realize that the chance of rates staying insanely low over a 30 year span was almost 0% then this mess wouldn't exist. Yes the banks were wrong to take advantage of the situation, but they were pretty much forced to by the government, especially under Clinton with Janet Reno threatening to go after banks who didn't issue the loans. So no, I have no pity for people who lost their homes because they wanted to live in luxury when they couldn't afford it. Or people who bought homes as an investment and it turned out to be a bad one (that's part of investing. there's risk).

Yes some basic checks on the market will always be needed, but many of the financial failures in the past 100 years have been due to government intervention in the market. Not raw capitalism itself. This situation wouldn't have existed if the government hadn't created the sub-prime market itself in the 70s with the Community Housing Act. It's bad business to give loans to people who can't afford them which is why those people never got the loans before that to begin with.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By andrinoaa on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By andrinoaa on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By BansheeX on 10/6/2008 9:44:12 AM , Rating: 5
You think it was capitalism that failed the markets? We are in the late stages of socialism, fool. 50% of our GDP is controlled by the government. Labor and interest rates are centrally price fixed. We have a non-market determined money with a ban on competing currencies. Banks can loan out money they don't have at interest while any other industry would be jailed for doing the same. Politicians regularly distribute our tax money to one industry and not another via subsidies or tax credits. We bail people out and remove the fear of bankruptcy that would have otherwise existed to deter risk. We offer federal insurance on deposits via the FDIC, removing the fear of losing a deposit that would otherwise deter depositors from ever loaning money to highly leveraged investment banks. We pass legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act in the name of social progress, essentially declaring lending standards discriminatory and forcing banks to make loans to low income people. We force every American to pay into a forced "retirement plan" at 12% of wages which is really just an unsustainable ponzi scheme. We nationalize industry and finance it with forcibly appropriated money, so it is far more resistant to failing from bad policy. Fannie and Freddie were government companies and accomplished the opposite of their initial goal by the time they corrupted. We ban products via the FDA, some of it is anti-competitive and the result of lobbying. These are all idealist socialist powers that the private industry doesn't have, but has access to as long as they exist. That's the problem. Buy a clue already.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 10:16:46 AM , Rating: 3
*waves hand*

These aren't the facts you're looking for.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Fnoob on 10/6/2008 11:14:18 AM , Rating: 2

'What do you think you are, some kind of Jedi? Your tricks won't work on me, I'm a Paulsonian!"

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Villains on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/2008 1:42:13 PM , Rating: 5
Would you want to live in a world where you are only alloted just " what is needed " and nothing more ?

Oh wait... nevermind. You apparently already are.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 1:49:08 PM , Rating: 3
Average home size is 2349 sq-ft?
Actually, it's 2434 sq ft and that size home is mostly concentrated in the southeastern US. The northeast would be second. The farther west you go, the more expensive homes get so they are generally smaller (there are exceptions). Homes are cheap here compared to most of Europe so we get larger one's.

In the south, depending on the neighborhood, you can get a 2400 sq ft house for well under $150k. More than affordable to your average American family.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Oregonian2 on 10/6/2008 9:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, that sized home would go for a LOT more than that here. Almost without regard to location. We're probably two to three times more expensive (making wild assumptions about location and the like) -- and we're dirt cheap compared to the SF Bay area in California. And our property taxes are high too (although there is no sales tax).

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Oregonian2 on 10/6/2008 9:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
My wife and I get by in a 2850 sq ft home (could use more).

I don't complain about those things (other than taxes). It was built in 1996 when we moved in, so although not real new, the insulation (and such) are decent -- but the central air conditioner could have been much higher in efficiency (now), so that is a problem in the summer -- but like buying a new Chevy Volt a spendy thing to "fix".

But then I didn't just graduate from college -- I used to be in apartments, then my first home was a whopping 1250 sq feet where my wife and I used to live. And that house still exists and is part of the average. I think the 2349 may be the average of new-builds rather than existing homes. As land becomes more expensive (very much the case here in my metro area where land zoned for houses is fairly scarce) it becomes more advantageous for builders to build larger houses on the land they have available to them. Of course at the very moment, houses aren't selling well and the smaller ones probably would sell better if it weren't for those looking for "entry houses" probably not being in good positions to get loans (at the moment) with good size down payments (speaking generally in a statistical way).

Of course, all of those nasty ARM and other 'creative' loans that the banks are now in trouble for having made had some part in driving up prices and house sizes seeing as how people could get loans for homes bigger than they could afford.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/7/2008 10:01:09 AM , Rating: 3
Who are you or the government to decide how much space I "need"? One of the biggest fake environmentalists out there, Al Gore, owns a 10,000 square foot home.

And what does the size of a home have to do with the rate? In some areas a 1000 square foot home costs as much as a 3000 square foot home in other areas. What matters is what you financed and how you financed it. It doesn't matter the size of the home.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Rhaido on 10/6/2008 2:35:57 PM , Rating: 4
"who want NO rules on capitalism may just learn something about orderly regulation ."

"...look what the market has done to you guys."

The mortgage crisis was not a function of a free market. Government corruption (mostly Democrats buying minority votes), intervention, and moral hazard created the problem.
>>>All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.
>>>Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.
>>>In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.
>>>The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.
>>>Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
>>>In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
>>>Financial bail-outs of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future, if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of losses.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By andrinoaa on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
By GiantPandaMan on 10/6/2008 11:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, your point is so full of crap that I had to reply to this one.

#1) The problems with ARM's started to show in 2006. These ARM's were not given back in 1994 but far more recently.
#2) Republicans ruled the Congress and Senate from about 1995 to 2007. The White House since 2001.
#3) Neither Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were small players in the ARM's market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's problems were they had too much SUB-PRIME mortgage debt. No dodging there.

Blame everything on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Umm, no. The problem is far larger and reaches into far more companies than that. What hand did the federal government or Democrats have in Lehmann Brothers? Was it the federal governments fault that AIG, Wachovia, WaMu and others were about to go insolvent? Stop putting your head in the sand so you can point fingers and feel better. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were simply the first to show signs and go down.

Blame everything on Democrats? Umm, your timeline is way off.

Inevitably, EVERYONE in government, the people who got the loans, and the people who gave them is to blame. Painting one single group as the culprits is oversimplifying, ignorant, and knee-jerk. The mortgage mess was caused by lack of regulation. Let me repeat. The mortgage mess was caused by lack of regulation! If you're fine with this happening every once in awhile (and no bailout) then you're a true free market capitalist. This is what free market capitalism, along with growth, can cause. As with all systems, it has its pros and cons.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Dark Legion on 10/6/2008 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it wasn't 80% when he was voted back into office almost 4 years ago. Unfortunately, we made our own bed with this one; when we had the power to show we learned our lesson, we just put him in office for another four years, and now we complain that it got worse.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By winterspan on 10/5/2008 10:20:53 PM , Rating: 3
What the hell are you talking about? This is an excellent thing and should be expanded to include traditional hybrid vehicles as well. Federal investment in green technology, and yes that includes tax breaks on hybrid vehicles, is absolutely essential to transition this country off of foreign oil and onto renewable energy. So far, the total investment in renewable energy production has hardly been a drop in the bucket compared to every other developed country, and this being the country that uses almost 25% of the world's foreign oil. It's pathetic and it needs to change, and the ignorant "less taxes no government" crowd life yourself is certainly not helping anything.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By ZmaxDP on 10/5/2008 11:45:57 PM , Rating: 4
There is this thing called an opinion, and last I checked we're all entitled to one. So, drop the "ignorant" remarks unless you want to look that way yourself. Less taxes and less government (not no government, duh) was one of the major opinions that lead to this country even existing, so show some respect.

My issue is that this tax rebate is going to a car that will likely end up costing well over $40,000 and doesn't quite frankly make any economic sense at that price range. It also prices it out of the range of most of the market. A large percent of the tax dollars in this country come from people who will be unable to afford this car. This is the problem. Why don't we have a $7,500 tax rebate for ALL cars that exceed the CAFE standards by 10 MPG or something. That means 37.5 mpg avg or better. Not that many cars meet that but the price range is far greater than a single car at $40,000. Now, you have viable options for most of the market which means the rebate is at least fairly available. This would also help more than just one US manufacturer sell cars. Worse, this bill gives incentives to a particular technology, not efficiency in general. So, what if someone makes some great technology that gives the same performance as the Volt's 16kW battery but with a much smaller battery? Too bad, no tax credit for you. What about a much more efficient gas or natural gas engine? Nope, no 16kW battery.

The idea of the government encouraging market innovations isn't something I reject on principle, but in this case they did a crappy job. As a result, companies are going to change their direction to get this tax credit regardless of it being the best way to make an energy efficient car. And, given the gas prices and recession, there is a lot of incentive to buy better performing cars already...

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Guttersnipe on 10/6/2008 1:13:58 AM , Rating: 1
yea part of it doesnt sit right with me. essentially well off yuppies are going to have their purchases subsidized by everyone. on the other hand at least its american:P

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By dubldwn on 10/6/2008 2:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
To add to your point, even if they are going to do the tax credit, this comes across as premature. GM will be lucky to make 100,000 of these through the first two model years – all of which will be sold anyway, so why is this even necessary right now? PR? They should wait a couple years to catch all the people who really need the credit to be able to get in on it.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 12:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
Production will be limited to 10,000 units per year.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By theapparition on 10/6/2008 8:36:23 AM , Rating: 3
So, what if someone makes some great technology that gives the same performance as the Volt's 16kW battery but with a much smaller battery? Too bad, no tax credit for you. What about a much more efficient gas or natural gas engine? Nope, no 16kW battery.

Congradulations on missing the entire point of the credit. To address you're points:
1. Smaller batteries would still be eligible for a tax break, starting at $4100, and increasing up to a maximum of $7500.
2. More efficient gas engines don't reduce DEPENDANCE on foreign oil. A plug-in with a 40 mile range could potentially never use a single drop of gas in it's lifetime.

Prius isn't eligible since it's not a plug in, however, if Toyota marketed one, it would immediately be eligible for that $4100+ tax credit too.

FYI, I'm not a big fan of tax credits.....but I also saw no one screaming when the Prius and Insite got a tax credit. Now that those credits have exprired, and they want to give a credit to new technologies, the Japco fanboi's want to cry. Cry me a river, because it's done.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By piroroadkill on 10/6/2008 8:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
Address you are points?

By theapparition on 10/6/2008 11:14:07 AM , Rating: 2
Typical Daily Tech reader reply.

Apparently, when you can't refute the content, the intent is to discredit the post by pointing out spelling or gramatical mistakes.

Replies like that just make you look small.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Oregonian2 on 10/6/2008 9:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
Problem he has probably is the word "performance" and different interpretations of it.

Also suggested is an idea that this particular tax advantage is singular and will not, no, can not be changed or added to in any way forever should some other technology come by. I think this idea is faulty.

This law does not have to fully encompass all possible things that might be tax enhanced. Additional laws are possible, there isn't a shortage of them. More can be added if a technology coming along is suitable for whatever reasons they're done. Not like something completely different will just show up next week in auto lots having been developed in complete secrecy before actual delivery.

I wonder if Toyota complained about the tax credits that helped their sales.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 9:18:43 AM , Rating: 1
A large percent of the tax dollars in this country come from people who will be unable to afford this car.

How do you figure this when the top 10% of earners in this country pay 70% of the personal income taxes. And the top 1% paid 40% of the taxes.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By OrSin on 10/6/2008 9:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
First the Heritage Group is A republican think tank, so they present the data to make them look good. Now they dont lie, off center fact to make the rich look much better.

YEs the top 10% of earns bay 70% of the taxes. But what they dont show you is they make 92% of the money. SO no they are not paying thier fair share of taxes.

Also also most none of those people will be buying the volt or really need the tax credit. In case your wondering the top 10% of this country make over $180K a year in house hold income. They are not buying a volt when they can get a BMW. Sorry just not happening

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 1:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
In case your wondering the top 10% of this country make over $180K a year in house hold income.
Not entirely correct. It depends on the age group counted in the statistics that the US Census Bureau collects. If we're talking 15 years old and over then the top 10% make $75k and over.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/7/2008 10:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
1/3 of the country pays 97% of the taxes(that would be $60,000/yr and up which I fall into). It doesn't matter that they have the majority of the money.

We have another 1/3 that doesn't pay any taxes. Is that their fair share? Nothing? And they still got the "stimulus" check. And they're more likely to draw from Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and the other social entitlement programs than me(I'll in all likelihood never draw from any of them). But that's fair to you? That they should be able to suck money out of a system they pay nothing into?

The fact is one third of the country is paying practically all the income taxes while a lot of another third is using it all. And don't get me started on Social Security which is money that I'll never even see again but the media and Democrats trashed Bush when he suggested I be able to keep some of that money instead and put it in a private account for myself.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 10:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
What incentive would there be for car companies if the tax rebates were issued for existing gasoline cars? Or for that matter, what incentive would there be for the public to buy these newer technologies if the same tax rebates were available for a cheaper gasoline car. Your thinking is kind of one dimensional, sure in the short term it may not be economical, but in the long term it will lead to much more efficient cars, and it should eventually trickle down to the lower models like technology always does.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Lord 666 on 10/6/2008 8:00:22 AM , Rating: 1
There will be another bailout deal coming soon enough for the US automakers. Bush quietly signed favorable loans for them last week as well.

What would be interesting is if the Volt sales chain adopted the OLPC model; to purchase one of the first series, you had to buy two with the second being donated to some truly needy households.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 5:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
you had to buy two with the second being donated to some truly needy households.
And how do these families pay for maintenance costs on cars like the Volt? The price of entry is just one barrier to poor families being able to afford a car. Maintenance is a huge consideration as well. While you are able to afford to upgrade your computer every 3 months (or shorter), these people can barely afford ONE computer (which was probably bought on credit) period.

RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Oregonian2 on 10/6/2008 9:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
Government will provide free Volt auto maintenance for the poor as well as electric power credits.

Even more government intervention into the economy.
By Ordr on 10/5/2008 9:45:08 PM , Rating: 4
Absolutely disgusting.

By Fnoob on 10/5/2008 9:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. Everyone should be getting their 'escape plan' in order.

By SiliconAddict on 10/6/2008 12:01:21 AM , Rating: 1
Please enlighten us where you plan on escaping too? The US has some of the lowest taxes in the damn world, and yet we complain the most. Lets ignore the fact that most other countries that do have high taxes don't have an infrastructure that is crumbling, and federal employees that get paid for dick.

I swear to god is it any wonder why us Americans get stereotyped as winy bitches? Is it also any wonder why Americans also are so heavily in debt up to their noses in credit debt? People are bitching about the bailout bill without even knowing enonomics 101. Namely if you are going to spend money it shouldn't be via credit, and that generally more money should be coming in then being taken out.
And yet many of my fellow Americans are screeching like 2 year olds' that "its not fair". Guess what asshats? Blame this debacle on Wall Street all you want. Its also your fault for buying houses, and goods well outside your means to pay them off. Right now I have a moderate mortgage, just under 3 grand on my CC from a new laptop that is slowly being widdled down, a mild car payment, a handful of utilities, all the while still smacking money into retirement in 30+ years and a rainly day fund.

People need to learn how to manage their finances and take economics 101.

By mikeyD95125 on 10/6/2008 12:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
Do you actually keep a balance on your credit card? Money down the toilet.

By puckalicious on 10/6/2008 9:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe you don't understand that most people are forced to carry debt because there is no other alternative.

Go hungry or carry debt? Easy choice.

Go homeless or carry debt. Easy choice.

Stop taking needed prescriptions or carry debt. Easy choice.

Meanwhile today's CEO: Manage a company correctly and benefit many people, or take a $50 million golden parachute to benefit only you? EASY CHOICE.

By Entropy42 on 10/6/2008 10:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
He said that he was putting money into retirement and a rainy-day fund. That doesn't exactly equate to not being able to eat.

By glennpratt on 10/6/2008 11:02:32 AM , Rating: 2
Go hungry or carry debt? Easy choice.
Go homeless or carry debt. Easy choice.
Stop taking needed prescriptions or carry debt. Easy choice.

These aren't the only choices most working people are faced with. Here in Dallas, almost any job you can find will cover an apartment (especially if you live with a roommate), food and health care. You just might need to adjust your standard of living to what you actually earn.

I don't blame people for racking up debt, it's too easy in this day and age, but it's not the only option.

By sweetsauce on 10/6/2008 2:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
So people gambling on sub prime loans hoping they can flip the house for profit is bad, but banks gambling that these people will actually afford the loan is good and deserves a bailout? Please justify this reasoning for me. I guarantee you if the government decided to assume all these loans, set it at a decent flat rate, and let these people keep their homes we'd be better off. Instead we just screw the people, and reward the idiot lenders with free tax money. Socialized capitalism is the worst thing this country has ever done, yet i totally understand why they did it. In fact its a brilliant way to redistribute wealth. I'd argue this "crisis" was planned all along, sure seems that way.

Don't mind me, im just a "conspiracy nut" right? wink wink.

By Lord 666 on 10/6/2008 8:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
Along with the new restrictions on bankruptcy in 2005, ethanol importation tax, and restrictions on diesel emmissions?

You can quote me on this - I personally feel that Bush will be hailed a genius in 20 years after history shows us being in Iraq/Afghan and his actions prevented a massive depression. How did the US eventually get out of the Great Depression? WWII.

By Topweasel on 10/6/2008 3:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I also see a lot of Reagenism here. Right people a going to be angry that we are going through a depression, paying more for oil. But in 5-10 years I see an amazing bounce back coming its kinda of teetering on the blades edge but I see it happening. The Problem is I think this current hiccup could have been avoided in the 90's but I think Clinton was looking a short term numbers, highest growth lowest unemployment, lowest homeless. But helped create something almost completely not maintainable.

By Oregonian2 on 10/6/2008 9:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
That might be a good idea so long as those who bought it to flip aren't allowed to sell the house at a profit (should that ever happen) in order to get help with keeping it now.

By Ringold on 10/6/2008 2:55:43 AM , Rating: 4
The US has some of the lowest taxes in the damn world, and yet we complain the most.

Well, compared to Western Europe, true. Compared to pretty much everyone else though, they're pretty high. Compared to the OECD our corporate taxes are nearly the highest.

But it's also not Western Europe where ex-patriot American's flock to for work. I'd rather be unemployed than take work in France. It's places like Hong Kong, Dubai, and Eastern Europe with things like 15% flat rate taxes or FEZ's (Free Economic Zones) where taxes are close to zero.

I agree on all the rest, though. People leverage up on credit in their private lives, and now are shocked that when the bubble comes out of the engine of their credit (their homes) that the credit markets need bailing out? This is not a failure of capitalism; this is capitalism giving us what we deserve for our collective actions.

By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 8:17:45 AM , Rating: 2
This plan was proposed before the market crash... so what exactly is your point here? If bush officially announced this 6 weeks ago, it would have been considered a 'green initiative' and not government intervention into the economy.

And one more thing.. I think it is about time the US bailed out the auto industry a bit, especially with its hybrids. I am personally never going to buy a toyota and as long as the Japanese artificially keep their currency low. This is also the reason Toyota has no place whining about this, they can go suck on their cheap yen.

By Ordr on 10/6/2008 9:31:08 AM , Rating: 2
My point is that government intervention into the private sector has not only caused the economic disaster that we are in, but will continually prolong it. This segues into your next point regarding the auto industry.

Why should the government "bail out" any private industry that is obviously unable to compete in a global economy? In doing this, they are effectively negating one of the purest examples of non-coercive capitalistic democracy. Every dollar that a customer willingly spends on a product is a vote as to whether or not that product (and, ultimately, that company) succeeds or fails. The customers have spoken.

By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 10:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
I would like you to do a little research on how Japanese auto manufacturers are using your Free Market against you, and why non-coercive capitalistic democracy cannot exist unless the entire world follows suit.
A few facts:

* With a yen valued at 118 to the dollar, Japanese automakers enjoy an average windfall $4,000 cost advantage per vehicle more than they would if the yen traded at its true value. The overall subsidy Japanese automakers gain for the 2.2 million vehicles they import totaled $8.8 billion in 2006.

* The total yen subsidy provided to Japanese automakers in 2006 was $13.4 billion – $8.8 billion for car & truck exports to the U.S. and $ 4.6 billion for imported parts used in American-made Japanese cars.

* More than half (52%) of all automobiles manufactured in Japan were designated for export in 2006, exceeding 50% for the first time in 19 years. In fact, even as demand within Japan for new autos is declining, Japanese companies are adding production capacity to Japan-based facilities, reactivating assembly lines, adding workers and postponing planned factory closures as they move to export ever greater numbers of vehicles.
Now explain to me how American auto companies are suppose to compete when they are paying more to build these cars, not to mention the fact how cheap their labor is compared to the US. (not to mention the U.S unions but that's a different story)

Now tell me what is the financial situation in Japan is like compared to the U.S right now? They intervened far more than the US is going to do a few years back with their banks, and they help out other industries, yet they seem to be one of the most productive countries in the world right now.

By Ordr on 10/6/2008 10:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
They aren't using the Free Market against us. We don't have a free market. Our market is extremely regulated and one of the consequences is that, due to subsidies, these sub-par American auto companies didn't fail years ago. At the moment, the Japanese are destroying us in that particular sector. In many, many other sectors, we are by far the dominant economic force in the world.

By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 10:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
In many, many other sectors, we are by far the dominant economic force in the world.
Which in thanks to the latest crisis, is going to change. The U.S is never going to have the same amount of economic power again.

By Ordr on 10/6/2008 11:08:37 AM , Rating: 2
Please explain.

By 91TTZ on 10/6/2008 1:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
Your post expressed little more than anti-US cheerleading.

By Spuke on 10/6/2008 5:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
The U.S is never going to have the same amount of economic power again.
You're going to have to explain this one. Also, please explain why the present economy is different than the failing economies of 2004, 2001, etc.

By Ordr on 10/6/2008 9:36:35 AM , Rating: 2
Something I missed:

How can you possibly say that the "green initiative" isn't government intervention into the economy? By increasingly taxing who they label as polluters and giving rebates to those who they label as "green", regardless of their accuracy in ascertaining these labels, this is one of the purest examples of governmental economic intervention.

By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 10:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, by no means am I saying that there is not government intervention here, obviously the government is infusing money using tax dollars. My point was now that the banks have screwed everyone, people are going to complain about any government intervention no matter if it is a good or bad thing for the public. The U.S is in need to get rid of at least some of their dependency of foreign oil, one of the many ways to do this is to give car manufacturers incentive to make these cars, and consumers incentive to buy them.

In the long run explain to me how this will hurt the economy? At the very least any small amount of backlash involved will be offset by reducing oil consumption. You can't just expect Car companies who are either already or almost in the red to take the entire load. That would result in companies going bankrupt, and a huge loss of American jobs. But then again, who cares, you are probably middle class and well off, things will work out for you regardless right? Good ol lessez fair..

By Ordr on 10/6/2008 11:06:56 AM , Rating: 2
Disregarding the last two sentences of your otherwise coherent reply, you seem to ignore the fact that these subsidies and interventions are payed for by ever-increasing taxation, that our problems with foreign oil are greatly increased due to the Draconian restrictions on domestic drilling and environmentalist knee-capping of new refineries being opened. These, specifically, are the roots of the problems that you mentioned. Preventing our country from using resources that are otherwise freely available is precisely one of the major contributing factors that is hurting our economy.

I'd rather...
By UninvitedGuest on 10/5/2008 9:59:31 PM , Rating: 1
I'd rather get a Hyundai Genesis, for that money.

The price tag of $32,500 is still too expensive for people who want an economy car for saving on fuel costs. There is a reason why people are willing to borrow money and finance purchase, opting to pay in installments even though in the long run it will cost them more. They just don't have the cash flow available in the short run to splurge.

So sure, the car will save you $1500 a year on gas (over what type of vehicle, I don't know. Over a pickup, or a competing hybrid?). You'd have to drive this car for over 9 years to make up the difference in purchase price between it, and the new Honda insight. And personally, I wouldn't bank on this unproven technology lasting 9 years.

As such, the car will really only gain traction amongst those who don't have to worry too much about fuel costs- they'll drive this because they're enviro conscious, or because it's the latest piece of technology. Which is why, if I had that type of money- I'd get a Hyundai genesis instead.

RE: I'd rather...
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 7:22:59 AM , Rating: 2
And personally, I wouldn't bank on this unproven technology lasting 9 years.

What is unproven about it? Locomotives have been using similar technology for years. It's a very simple system too. Far simpler than a system like the Prius has which has to constantly manage the electric and gas engines. This thing just uses the battery to drive the car. And when the battery gets to low, the gas engine/generator kicks on to recharge the battery.

RE: I'd rather...
By on 10/6/2008 9:58:19 AM , Rating: 1
Why all of the GM hate, man? Are you related to Al Gore? You must be a liberal wuss at the very least.

RE: I'd rather...
By on 10/6/2008 10:05:03 AM , Rating: 2
Doh, I hate it when I reply to myself. Doh, I did it again!

RE: I'd rather...
By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 10:10:36 AM , Rating: 1
What are you five? You know you are a big fag when you are online at 10 in the morning impersonating people on a blog site. I bet this is the highlight of your day..

RE: I'd rather...
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 10:08:45 AM , Rating: 1
Hello again little troll.

RE: I'd rather...
By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 9:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
This is a god damn mid sized sedan! This is not a Prius or Insight hatchback! You cannot compare how long it will make to get your money back, because it is a bigger car. You are comparing a high end GM car to a mid to low end Toyota. Now if Toyota had something like a Camry or Corolla hybrid that had comparable MPG and ran 40 miles on electricity, then you would have a valid comparison.

GM Bailout
By ctodd on 10/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: GM Bailout
By The0ne on 10/6/2008 9:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
Because apparently bringing diesel engine vehicles like the 50+mpg Fiesta is a bad idea to the economy, let alone the small American cars running upwards of 30+mpg in Europe. I say let the US automakers die in their own country for not trying hard enough to bring what consumers want. But that's just me.

RE: GM Bailout
By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 9:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
It is pretty obvious to me with all the mom's driving SUV's, families with minivans, and rich people buying high end sports cars could care less. Until gas prices went up, the American consumer did not want what you are describing.

I agree with you that there is absolutely no reason why we should not have cars like a 50mpg Fiesta, but just from looking at the parking lot outside my work, I can see that most people could care less, or they would be buying 40+mpg cobalts and civics.

RE: GM Bailout
By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 9:58:55 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the fact this car goes 0-60 in 8-8.5 seconds..
Compared to the current Prius 11+, and the new generation which is only suppose to barely cross the 10 second barrier.

RE: GM Bailout
By The0ne on 10/6/2008 4:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
It's fine and dandy if the US automakers want to milk the consumers due to the demand but when the trend starts shifting and you start seeing competitors rack up profits from fuel efficient vehicles you should start re-thinking your plan. This they knew and decided against it. They even said it themselves! So then why should I care if they go down due to their bad decisions? I don't. But I do care that the government is helping bail them out in this so call loan much like what they are doing to the Financial institutions.

Someone has to pay for the mistakes or we'll all be damn to pay for mistakes idiots make over and over again. We're not talking small change here either.

RE: GM Bailout
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 6:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
shifting and you start seeing competitors rack up profits from fuel efficient vehicles you should start re-thinking your plan.
Right now, no one is racking up profits. LOL! All of the car makers are in the toilet in sales.

Toyota shouldn't complain
By gevorg on 10/5/2008 8:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
$7500 tax credit on a Prius would be almost a third of its price, which is way too much. This will work against the idea that hybrids need to become cost effective without tax credits.

RE: Toyota shouldn't complain
By inighthawki on 10/5/2008 9:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
There inlies the problem, everyone already makes money off of the cars we have today, what incentive do they have to make the earth cleaner? New technology helps but only to those who can afford it, and government tax credits make it easier to embrace a technology which, in the end, is beneficial to everyone and does something about the greedy people who just want more money from oil.

RE: Toyota shouldn't complain
By pattycake0147 on 10/5/2008 10:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
Tax credits would make it easier if they brought the price down to affordable levels. $7500 off a $40k car still leaves it at $32500 which is a bit more than the average person is willing to spend on a Volt. This holds especially true when you can get a Prius at $23k. Ten thousand dollars is a lot of gas. This will only benefit people in the upper echelon that don't need the help in the first place.

RE: Toyota shouldn't complain
By whoisnader on 10/5/2008 10:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
The technology in this car isn't exactly off the shelf and hence 'aint cheep.

Remember that a lot of the technology comes from suppliers (battery included) who are free to strike deals with other manufactures. Once more and more manufactures start engaging these suppliers, you will start to see the price come down as the numbers go up.

The only way to get manufactures to make more cars that use this technology is to make the price affordable to the customer. I still think the price is high but it is better than having to fork out the total cost.
It's not just about the savings of running the car, it is about how much you have to borrow from the bank and loan repayments.

The US government is just trying to stimulate the market as much as it can.

$40K BASE?
By Fnoob on 10/5/2008 9:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
The BASE! price of this neuvo prior gen dodge stratus looking thing is $40,000? Are they serious? Unless it comes with a $15-20K 'instant dealer rebate' in addition to the tax credit, I think they will be able to count the number sold on their senior executives fingers.

Comon Chevy get a FN clue! Who in their right mind is going to spend Corvette level money (once equipped) on something that looks to be in the same class as a Malibu? Speaking of... that's what they should have done - slap a hybrid drive system in their new Malibu and sell it for about $25K nicely equipped. The new body style looks pretty sharp, and if it had a hybrid option and a price that matched the Prius (and spanked it's ass performance wise) - they would sell like mad.

RE: $40K BASE?
By mdogs444 on 10/5/2008 9:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
if it had a hybrid option and a price that matched the Prius (and spanked it's ass performance wise) - they would sell like mad.

Then you would be talking about a totally different automobile. The batteries are the basis of the costs. Down the road they'll get less expensive, but what do you expect for new technology.

I don't like the car, but c'mon man.

RE: $40K BASE?
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 7:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
The batteries themselves are nearly $10k and that's the supplier cost. Batteries, simply, are not cheap.

why does green have to mean wimpy
By invidious on 10/6/2008 9:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
Throw a 20 kWh battery cell in a Jeep with a 500 ftlb motor and that would be something worth buying for cool factor. It will probably only go 20-30 miles on the battery power but you wouldn't look like a hippie while you were doing it.

RE: why does green have to mean wimpy
By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 9:31:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yes because that makes sense, instead of developing smaller and more efficient cars, in which 95% of us don't have a need for (probably including yourself), we develop more big vehicles just so you can look cool while driving.

RE: why does green have to mean wimpy
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 7:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
we develop more big vehicles just so you can look cool while driving.
Eventually, this tech will make it to other markets besides the eco one's. The car makers will eventually want make money from this tech so it will have to branch out to other types of vehicles.

By ira176 on 10/6/2008 3:43:18 AM , Rating: 2
instead of the tax payers footing this $7500 tax credit Chevy should just sell the car for $7500 more. Then the people who can actually afford it, will absorp the cost, and in a couple of years the price will come down so that many other people can afford it.

RE: Maybe
By bobny1 on 10/6/2008 7:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
Just another bellout for the rich. Howmany people can afford a 40k plus car and get a return in their incometax. Whats next?. 100k tax credit on a hybrid 500k Eldiablo?.Pathetic!!.

By adiposity on 10/6/2008 1:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
They could have at least waited until Chevy set the god damn price. Now they will just adjust it to whatever they think they can sell, including the 7500 tax credit. That money will go straight to GM.

God damn it.

RE: Amazing
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 7:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
That money will go straight to GM.
Describe how that will happen? I'm curious.

By Alphafox78 on 10/6/2008 9:08:10 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe this will make toyota put in a bigger battery to get the credit.. Wouldnt hurt.

What Price?
By ranger203 on 10/5/2008 10:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
I see all this talk about price price price. What would it take for you to buy a plug in vehicle with specs of 40 miles off a charge in addition to good fuel economy?

I'd but this car for $24,000. I don't care if it's 27K -3K tax rebate or just a vanilla 24K, that's how much I would pay to never buy gas for my daily commute to work, my weekends driving around town on errands and fun. Are you listening Car makers, you have a buyer right here....

Special Interests
By mikeyD95125 on 10/6/2008 12:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
The battery pack wattage requirement makes no sense from an actual technology standpoint. This only a move to boost sales of an American made car. This provision in the bill was probably lobbied by GM to help them compete with Toyota and Honda.

Sounds more like a tariff than a tax credit...

car is still too expensive
By yacoub on 10/6/2008 7:54:35 AM , Rating: 2
Considering you could purchase a car of similar size like a Scion, small Honda or small Toyota, and you would have a car that is likely to be more reliable, likely better build quality, would cost less to maintain and run, because even at $3.50/gallon you'd have to drive the Volt for decades before it would gain parity let alone be more cost-effective, and you'd have a car more readily understandable for troubleshooting for common problems and could have its basic maintenance done safely by the owner compared to an electric-powered car.

Credit to spur economies of scale
By chotz on 10/6/2008 9:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the $7500 credit for the volt is really intended to make it affordable for the masses. However, at some level there will be people that are going to be willing to buy one at $32500 but not at $40k, so this will have the effect of increasing the overall number of volts which are sold (assuming demand does not outstrip supply). This should enable economies of scale to bring down the costs of manufacturing the volt (and subsequent cars based on similar technology) sooner than if no credit was given. So in the long run, hopefully the credit does result in cars based on this type of technology being affordable for the rest of us.

14 KWH Battery?
By AlphaZeta on 10/6/2008 10:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
According to my calculation here , even a 14 KWH battery is only enough to power a 20 horse power engine for an hour!

Today, the primary challenge to the plug-in hybrids is battery technology.

By bldckstark on 10/6/2008 12:59:41 PM , Rating: 1
Chevy recently, quietly, informed the public that the gas engine would not in actuality be recharging the battery while driving past the 40 mile point. It would only generate power to run the drive motors while in motion. I am not sure what the gas engine does when the vehicle is stopped, but I suppose it shuts off. This is after they made the gas tank smaller, raised the price, and changed the styling. This is not the same vehicle they have been trying to sell us on for the last four years. They must have taken marketing lessons from Sony.

Sorry I don't feel the need to vent my personal feelings on the economy. There is nothing that I could type in a DailyTech comment box that will help.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki