backtop

Print 61 comment(s) - last by freaqie.. on Oct 26 at 5:31 PM
Discount adds up to $42,000 off a new Tesla Roadster

Anyone who has had an eye on getting a new Tesla Roadster, but has been waiting for the sale price of the car to drop from its $109,900 price point to a more reasonably $70k-ish will have a really good day after hearing this news (assuming you live in Colorado). The state of Colorado is offering a special tax credit that is designed to allow purchasers of electric vehicles to save big on the purchase price.

The catch, other than having to live in Colorado, is that you have to buy before December 31. The tax credit, which is apparently on state income taxes not federal taxes, allows for a credit of up to 85% of the difference between the price of certain alternative fuel vehicles and the price of a similar gasoline powered vehicle.

GreenCarReports.com reports that in the case of the sexy Tesla Roadster, the discount works out to a whopping $42,000. That is equivalent to getting the Tesla Roadster for $67,800, a 38.6% discount. To make things easier for Colorado residents, Tesla is set to open a dealership in Boulder, Colorado today with an invitation only VIP cocktail gala.

Those wondering why a store in Colorado and why such big discounts for residents, Kimbal Musk, brother of Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote, "While in Colorado, Nikola Tesla proved that earth was a conductor of electricity, produced artificial lightning with discharges consisting of millions of volts...and performed long distance power transmission experiments that lit up banks of lights around Colorado Springs."

There is the answer, the electronic automakers namesake spent time in Colorado and made important discoveries there. Colorado is also home to some very wealthy residents, which is a nice thing for Tesla as well.

For those that require a bit more passenger space and a lot more luxury, the Lexus LS 600h L can be had with “only” a $20,392 tax credit. You can see the full list of tax credits here (PDF).

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Insult to taxpayers
By Soulkeeper on 10/23/2009 10:29:55 AM , Rating: 5
Must suck to be a colorado taxpayer

Every time the government subsidizes something in this way (rich people or not) it's not the government's money it's our money.

How about they fire 1 government employee (would easily cover the 38% discount) for each roadster purchased, that'd be a win win.




RE: Insult to taxpayers
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Insult to taxpayers
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/2009 10:47:13 AM , Rating: 5
Aww, HTML fail.


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By StraightCashHomey on 10/23/2009 4:51:53 PM , Rating: 5
ha ha.. you got a -1 for your original post and a +5 for saying "HTML Fail"


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By weskurtz0081 on 10/23/2009 11:50:21 AM , Rating: 5
Really? You think people are going to move to Colorado and become a resident by December 31'st just to buy a car?!

Or, was there some sarcasm hidden in your post some where?


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Insult to taxpayers
By weskurtz0081 on 10/23/2009 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 5
How many people that can afford to drop $70K on a vehicle would care to change residency, change homes, just to buy a car? Seriously? Anyone who was going to leave Colorado, if they want to buy this car, will just buy the car and leave after. This silly three month policy won't prevent ANYONE from leaving the state.

Also, people buying homes are not the same people that are in the market for a car. The only people that MIGHT choose Colorado are the ones that are also in the market for a car at the same time. But, no one that just "wants a roadster" is going to move to Colorado just to buy one.

Also, it's really only two months that you have to become a resident of the state of Colorado to buy this thing.

So, lets explore what it takes to become a resident of the great state of colorado.

You must get a job in Colorado, you must have a Colorado DL, and you must also own a vehicle with valid Colorado license plates.

You think someone with enough money to drop $70K on a car, would go to all this trouble to get $40K off an all electric vehicle?


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By lightfoot on 10/23/2009 1:05:56 PM , Rating: 1
So you're saying that you wouldn't spend a day at the DMV to save $40,000? You are clearly far richer than I am, and can no doubt afford the car without the discount. However there are plenty of people who could easily afford this car (after discount) that don't earn $40,000 per day.

(But as a Colorado tax payer this program pisses me off.)

Governor Ritter, You're Fired! (never getting my vote.) They are laying off police officers in Denver and closing Libraries state wide because they can't afford them, but we can somehow afford to subsidize a millionaire’s toy? WTF?


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By weskurtz0081 on 10/23/2009 1:13:29 PM , Rating: 5
The point isn't whether I would spend a day at the DMV or not. The point is, would I move to a new state, find a new job, and do all that is necessary to become a resident of that state just so I can buy a car? No. I would not.

And, you must absolutely be able to afford the car without the discount because it's a tax credit that you will eventually get back, not a rebate. You will have to be able to buy the car for the full price, pay the payments at THAT price, and eventually you will get the money back from the state.

So, you will ALREADY have to come up with a large chunk of money, and make the payments until you get the money back from the state, whenever that will be, likely around April some time.

Point is, if you have that kind of money (and don't already live in Colorado), would you want to do all these things just to buy a car? No, I think not.


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By sinful on 10/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Insult to taxpayers
By weskurtz0081 on 10/23/2009 3:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
So, once again, you think a business owner would make a business decision based on getting a personal tax rebate on a car?

No CEO worth a damn would make a decision to relocate a business based on a $40K tax rebate to his personal account.

Business make decisions based on what best for the business, not getting a discount on a car. Things like, business environment, cost of doing business, level of regulation, labor market, etc.....

And, comparing a business relocating labor intensive jobs to a different country is a completely different set of decisions. If you would like, I can explain to you how it's different.


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By lightfoot on 10/23/2009 3:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
No, but for a wealthy individual looking for a place to move/retire to, it just might factor into their decision. It may not be the only factor but it could be a contributing factor.

I just bought a $1.5 million condo in Aspen, but I saved $40,000 on my Tesla!


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By freaqie on 10/26/2009 5:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
then again....
if you were loooking for a second (or third) home anyway...
and looking for a tesla..

and lets not forget the media coverage that this brings the state... it might just pull in more people then you think.

although i doubt that is the reason for this measure.
i think colorado wants to build a green image, just as california has been doing. which also hapens to attract people.

but anyway...

i think that ultimately the money would be much better spent at insulating homes, getting people to buy lots of small efficient cars instead... but hey.. that's just me


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By Ammohunt on 10/26/2009 2:30:21 PM , Rating: 1
Then you can subsidize the rich liberals in Boulder with YOUR money. I am a middle class Colorado Taxpayer and even with a government handout i would never consider a $67K car purchase! Frankly i just want to be left the f*** alone!


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By GaryJohnson on 10/23/2009 12:14:23 PM , Rating: 3
Speaking as a Colorado taxpayer, yes it does suck to be a Colorado taxpayer. I wish I could say that this is a single incident of stupid Colorado legislation, but it's only a drop in the bucket.


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By choadenstein on 10/23/2009 12:57:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I wish I could say that this is a single incident of stupid Colorado legislation, but it's only a drop in the bucket.


Not being a Colorado resident, I kinda assumed that. You don't knock a huge hunking turd like this tax credit out of the ballpark your first time up to bat.


RE: Insult to taxpayers
By ChickenMcTest on 10/23/2009 5:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well, no, the tax credit in question is non-refundable. So the person in question will be able to reduce their tax liability by up to $42k if they purchased this car. Your tax dollars would not, per se be helping this person purchase this car.


HEY
By RU482 on 10/23/2009 9:48:00 AM , Rating: 5
It's about time rich people get a break




RE: HEY
By tviceman on 10/23/2009 10:01:25 AM , Rating: 1
Especially after bailing out those poor CEO and wall street workers who were barely making it by with integrity and responsibility.


RE: HEY
By tallcool1 on 10/23/2009 10:21:57 AM , Rating: 3
People that can afford a $75K+ car, don't need a tax credit!
Thats just ridiculous...

How about instead giving that $40K in tax dollars back to the citizens instead of wasting it on this worthless program.

This kind of stuff just drives me crazy. We got states that are heavy into debt, the US is borrowing money from China, unemployment high, and yet someone in the upper middle class needs a tax credit (aka using citizens of Colorado money) on his "green" $100K sports car?

This is a great example why we need "real" conservatism ideas back into the governments across this country.


RE: HEY
By Hieyeck on 10/23/2009 10:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
Not to burst your bubble, but the rich pay taxes too. Why not get their money's worth from the taxes they pay... UNLESS YOU'RE A COMMIE.


RE: HEY
By tallcool1 on 10/23/2009 12:46:39 PM , Rating: 4
You completely mis-understood my post or perhaps I didn't word it clearly enough. No I am not a commie! LMAO. The complete opposite actually. I believe in Capitalism, not Socialism. I don't think the rich should be over taxed to pay for programs either.

Same goes for a lower priced car like the Chevy Volt, or the cash for clucks program. We should not be spending tax payers money (yours, mine and everybody elses) so that someone can buy a more expensive car than what thier income normally would afford. I would rather keep my money and let me decide how it should be spent, and the tax dollars that I do contribute, I would rather they go towards something more useful. How about paying off our debts for starters? That's what most fiscally responsible people would do with their own personal income, but our government doesn't look at it that way. You know why? Because its our money they are spending. When your in the hole as much as we (USA) are at this point, you don't look for ways to spend more money on things that are not essential.

I am sick and tired of us citizens of the USA having to go to countries like China and beg/borrow for money or be dependant on countries that don't like us for critical resources.

Stupid tax programs like this is just an example of how clueless some people are of solving our real problems.


RE: HEY
By borismkv on 10/23/2009 1:41:10 PM , Rating: 1
Not to burst your bubble, but the rich can afford shady accountants that can hide their money in off-shore accounts so they don't have to pay taxes.


RE: HEY
By Omega215D on 10/24/2009 7:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
No, but rich people do have a lot more tax write offs than the average person so in essence they get a good portion of their money back. Meanwhile the poor can get welfare and assistance which leaves us the middle class which tends to bear the brunt of the cost.


RE: HEY
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/25/2009 1:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-dece...

I think you should have a look at who really pays the most taxes and it's neither the middle class nor the poor.


RE: HEY
By freaqie on 10/26/2009 5:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
well what the article fails to mention is, that the difference in income has also increased vastly.

therefore it is logical that rich people seeem to pay a larger percentage, as teh rest hasn;t gained a lot in income (in comparison to them)

that however does not mean they pay a larger percent of their income to the taxes, that is a dfferent matter.

and really that is the one we should be caring about.
a poor lone mother having to pay 30% of her 900$ wage..
or a guy who has to pay 30% of his 20.000$ paycheck..

i mean the latter can easily afford it, and have money to burn. while the first person has a much bigger problem trying to cover the bills.


RE: HEY
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/2009 10:43:20 AM , Rating: 3
They should have added to the first-time home-buyer incentive a credit to people with multiple homes. A vacation home-buyer credit, if you will. It would give a $40,000 credit to anyone buying a $200,000+ home they won't live in, rent, lease, or sell.

For the stock market, we should have a capital gains tax incentive. Ten percent of every dollar of profit would be reduced from your other taxes, and of course capital gains wouldn't be taxed at all.

I think I need to run for the Colorado state Senate. I'd do well.


RE: HEY
By sinful on 10/23/2009 2:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's about time rich people get a break


But teh rich craeate jobz!

Maybe a fatcat CEO will uses that $40K in savings to hire someone!

It's sort of like the idea of dumping meat into the ocean to prevent shark attacks. Maybe once the sharks have had their fill, they won't bite people!

Likewise, maybe if we shovel enough money into the pockets of the rich, they'll generously give some of that money back.

Besides the people that would have benefited from that money are all probably lazy liberals in a union waiting for their welfare checks!

Rush Limbaugh told me so!


RE: HEY
By Spuke on 10/25/2009 8:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Likewise, maybe if we shovel enough money into the pockets of the rich, they'll generously give some of that money back.
They do give a lot back. We're the most generous country on Earth from poor to billionaire.


Welfare for the Rich
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/2009 10:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, on a state level, this is probably a really smart move. Incentivizing wealthy people to live in Colorado will probably result in increased revenue, despite the loss from the credit.

For the country, however, it's bad. It doesn't improve the economy and has a detrimental effect everywhere but Colorado. It's like having a regressive income tax, but arguably worse.

The best comparison I can make is SimCity 4. Oh yes, a video game analogy. In SimCity 4, the only smart way to manage a city is through brutally regressive personal and business income taxes. The poor should be charged at almost double the rate of the rich, with the middle class somewhere in between. It's the only way to get more rich people to come to your city and thus maintain a high per-capita revenue.

Unfortunately, this is the real world and those people have to come from somewhere. Competition between states and municipalities is just as good as market competition. A problem arises, however, when they use artificial means to compete that don't actually improve economic output or social conditions.

I don't care what your stance on global warming is. A $42,000 credit on a six-figure car is welfare for the rich and far less effective at carbon and pollution reduction than many other initiatives -- initiatives that actually increase economic output. A small -- say $1000 to $5000 -- tax credit on a Leaf or Volt might be justified. If you can afford a Tesla you don't need a tax incentive.

</rant>




RE: Welfare for the Rich
By weskurtz0081 on 10/23/2009 11:54:13 AM , Rating: 3
No wealthy person is going to move to Colorado by the December 31'st just to buy a Tesla Roadster at around 36% off. Come on, just doesn't make any sense.


RE: Welfare for the Rich
By Yawgm0th on 10/23/2009 12:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
I bet one or two will. If your annual salary is $400,000 and you have the choice to move jobs to Colorado or another state, ceteris paribus, why not move to Colorado and get that $42,000 discount off of the Tesla Roadster you want? A single person will make up for the his or her own tax credit in the additional tax credit he or she would bring to the state at that income level.

The question is whether enough will come to Colorado or choose not to leave Colorado to make up for those who buy the Roadster and would have stayed anyway.


RE: Welfare for the Rich
By weskurtz0081 on 10/23/2009 12:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's the point, in the next 2 months, you honestly think that many people would move to Colorado just to get that car at a discounted price? If someone is making $400K a year, $40 difference in a car is minor, and the ONLY way they would choose to move to one place over another is IF (like you said) ALL other things are equal, which they never are.


RE: Welfare for the Rich
By geddarkstorm on 10/23/2009 1:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, if Colorado is willing to do this, think of what other incentives it might have in the pipe for the wealthy. Much better than many of those other states when it comes to long term prospects.

I think that's really the point he's trying to make.

But honestly, I doubt the Colorado legislature thought of any of this like that. They likely are just trying to stimulate Tesla sales and get an industry going. The next Detroit! (Not really) I guess it depends on what other industry attracting initiatives they are trying, if any.


RE: Welfare for the Rich
By weskurtz0081 on 10/23/2009 1:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, someone with that much money is not an idiot.

They will also take into account the cost of living comparison, the taxes, the lifespan of the car, the fact that in many cases it's not really a daily driver.

And, basing the "incentives" that may or may not happen in the future on this one on the car would not be wise.


RE: Welfare for the Rich
By Entropy42 on 10/23/2009 2:22:41 PM , Rating: 3
Trying to make the next Detroit is a stupid idea. That place is a sh*thole. :-p


RE: Welfare for the Rich
By wempa on 10/23/2009 12:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100% here. In determining where you want to live, there are so many more important factors that go into that decisions that this is going to have very little effect, especially considering that this is a very expensive item that most people can't realistically afford. I can only think of 2 situations this would influence such a decision. (1) You live in Colorado, are were already considering a Tesla (2) You are considering a move to Colorado as well as purchasing a Tesla.


Lack of foresight?
By Iaiken on 10/23/2009 10:44:29 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think that they had the Tesla Roadster in mind when they did this and it is going to come back to bite them in the ass. The days where the poor look upon the rich as a carrot on a stick are numbered and the days of evenhanded policy are numbered.

I can see the intention of the break since it is pretty general and seems to be intended to allow people to get into the Prius, Volt and others (except the Insight). However, in the current political climate, it would have been much more prudent to have put more limitations on this such as a dollar amount and American cars only.

Being as the law is left so wide open, I can't really blame Tesla for positioning themselves to take advantage. I mean they are just exercising their capitalism-given right to exploitation.




RE: Lack of foresight?
By HotFoot on 10/23/2009 11:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to have to join the chorus of people asking why there is a need for the government to spend taxpayer's dollars subsidising alternative fuel vehicles in the first place. If consumers value that feature of the product, they'll weigh for themselves if it's worth the extra money. I don't pay taxes to Colorado, so I don't get a vote, but if I did I'd be steamed.

I'm not really right-wing. I can tolerate a certain amount of tax and spend for the right reasons. But why is there this kind of subsidy in the first place? Is it for environmental reasons? These alternatives haven't been shown (to me, at least) to have environmental benefits of the full life-cycle of the vehicle.

I guess my argument is against the whole principle of even the intent of this subsidy. That it applies to the Tesla roadster is just lunacy and on another whole level of ridiculousness.


RE: Lack of foresight?
By weskurtz0081 on 10/23/2009 11:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
I am not sure if you read the attached PDF, but the SPECIFICALLY list the Tesla Roadster at the bottom of the list on page 3.

Big government and big business making big money off of the tax payers. Someone in Congress in Colorado is probably getting some MAJOR kick backs from this.


RE: Lack of foresight?
By Iaiken on 10/23/2009 3:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well they basically covered ALL of the alternate fuel and low emission vehicles from various manufacturers.

So single out the Tesla Roadster tax credit all you want, but what you're really getting pissed of at is the fact that the legislature is both evenhanded and straightforward.

What the politicians may have been attempting to do with the other 60+ vehicles on the list is made irrelevant because of they extended it all the way up to include an electric supercar.

Shame on them!


RE: Lack of foresight?
By weskurtz0081 on 10/23/2009 3:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, pretty much.

Tell me this, what's the goal with the legislation? Is it to make the environment cleaner? Yes.... that's it!

So, why the need to pay $40K dollars of TAX PAYER MONEY to anyone to buy a supercar? Seriously? Do you not think that is excessive? Do you want your tax payer money going to help someone by a supercar because it's all electric? Don't you think there might be more beneficial things to spend that $43K dollars on?

I don't care that there are 60+ or however many other vehicles on the list, there is no need for the government to subsidize $100K automobiles.


RE: Lack of foresight?
By alphadog on 10/24/2009 12:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
Colorado isn't directly paying for the car with taxpayer money. They are issuing a credit, which means they collect less.

(Admittedly, this may indirectly affect the taxpayer, since their will be less tax collected and some programs will have to suffer for it. This should make rightwingers happy.)


RE: Lack of foresight?
By weskurtz0081 on 10/24/2009 9:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
So, if you don't buy the car, you don't get the money right? So, they are spending $40K to convince people to buy a car, doesn't matter if it's going to the dealer, or the person buying the car, the end result is going to be the same.

No matter if they are issuing the credit the day they buy the car or the day the tax returns are due, they are still forking over $40K for anyone who buys that car.

Oh, and taking money from one wasteful government program, and putting it into some other wasteful government program, shouldn't make anyone happy, left, right, middle, should not matter.


Stupid
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2009 9:54:48 AM , Rating: 5
Why are we subsidizing non-essential luxury items? This green stuff is a crock of $hit to begin with. If Tesla can sell their cars without a tax break, then good for them. If they can't, then they should close up shop.




RE: Stupid
By Lord 666 on 10/23/2009 10:37:53 AM , Rating: 4
Read the fine print... you have to put a rainbow sticker on the bumper.


Great!
By bradmshannon on 10/23/2009 9:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
Let me hwip out my check book then!

Still way too expensive. I know they are selling them as fast as they are making them, but they really should consider a low-end car for those hungry for green vehicles.




RE: Great!
By Hulk on 10/23/2009 10:19:32 AM , Rating: 2
Let's see, giant state funded break for a two seat sports car that does 0-60mph under 4.5 seconds and costs over $100,000 because it's electric?

What kind of ecological impact will this make? None, zero, zilch, nada. Well, there will be some impact from the 6000+ Lithium ion batteries that will eventually have to be dealt with from each of these toys.

This money would be better spent in about 1 million other ways.


Yea but how does it drive in snow?????
By hosps on 10/23/2009 11:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
As a Colorado resident, I don't have as much of a problem with the tax credit as I do the logic in thinking this type of vehicle would sell well here.

Nobody in their right mind would drive this in the winter time with all the snow, ice and road gravel they put down. The extreme temperature changes we have during the year would be hell on the batteries and their capacity. And last but not least, most of the cities road systems (with the exception of Denver) are not very friendly to low clearance vehicles due to the hills and sharp inclines used to help funnel rain and snow melt off.

About the only advantage to the vehicle is it won't loose any horsepower due to altitude unlike current vehicles.




By IcePickFreak on 10/23/2009 12:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
Let's be honest here, anyone who is buying a Tesla Roadster isn't planning on using it for a daily driver. It will make 5 trips to the country club over the course of a year, and then sit in the garage while the owner tries to sell it to buy the next "it" thing to show up at the country club in.

Also, I wonder if Tesla (the company) is relying on using Nikola Tesla's power transmission so people can just plug their Tesla Roadster into the ground to recharge. I would imagine Colorado doesn't have much infrastructure in place for people to "charge up" if they're planning to go further than the country club.

Sorry for always sounding so pessimistic when it comes to Tesla Motors, but their business ethics just stink and I certainly won't be surprised if(when?) they get busted for shady business practices. That said, I can certainly appreciate the technology and innovative engineering.


much ado about nothing
By chromal on 10/23/2009 1:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how much you would need to be reporting as taxable income for a $38000 state income tax credit to 'work,' but I believe I paid something like $1250 CO state income tax on $50K or so income last year, so, obviously, you'd have to be well well well above seven-figure incomes for there to be enough money in the pool for a $38K credit to mean anything at all.

They (CO State GVT) probably do need to go back and look at whatever enables the credit, though, and reformulate it for our changing 'alternative fuel' auto industry. The landscape has changed a lot, and we're starting to see mainstream alternative sports and luxury vehicles... Has anyone even studied the Tesla roadster's 'greenness' from a TCO standpoint?




RE: much ado about nothing
By kmmatney on 10/23/2009 5:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. Taxes are reasonably low here in Colorado - I doubt this will have much of an effect on the budget. Fro colorado, though, it would make more sense to have tax credits on SUV hybrid vehicles, which actually will get everyday use.


By corduroygt on 10/23/2009 10:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
State of Colorado cuts hours, lays off employees due to recession to give the rich a tax break on a toy that won't be their primary car. That's rich! (literally)




colorado?
By Randomblame on 10/23/2009 12:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
I feel a south park episode coming soon




Really???
By KIAman on 10/23/2009 1:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
All a rich person has to do is know somebody in Colorado (friends, family) and give them cash to buy the car (plus tips?!?). Once whatever rules that do not allow them to transfer title expires, sign the car over.




Gotta love it... or NOT !
By Beenthere on 10/23/2009 1:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
Tax payers paying for the well healed to buy $100K toys must make the average working class person proud of America or NOT ! Paying out $4 BILLION in tax payer money so the well healed could get a $4500 rebate on a new vehicle while those who could really use $4500 to pay the rent, buy food or possibly buy a new car, must make the blue collar worker real proud of our government and Bama. Allowing scumbag bankers to get multi-million dollar bonues for destroying the U.S. banking industry and accepting BILLIONS in U.S. tax payer bail-outs must make American voters proud of the unscrupulous behavior of bankers and elected officials in DC or NOT !

WHAT SCUMBAGS !




Ludicrous thing ever...
By 2bdetermine on 10/23/2009 5:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
I guess rich people needs social assistance too.:-D




Misdirected
By tech329 on 10/24/2009 3:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with much better things to do with our money. Nationwide our public infrastructure is of depression era vintage and needs some serious looking after if we intend on turning our economy around and going toe to toe in the global marketplace. Or how about figuring out a way to fund public education differently so we can compete for jobs and take the sting out of the soaring cost of college. Those are just a couple of biggies and there are many more. A gadget like this doesn't really accomplish a whole lot. It is mostly a feel good remedy with a very narrow focus which looks to me like just another example of a national lack of vision.




By on 10/24/2009 9:03:24 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.myyshop.com

Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.

Myyshop.com commodity is credit guarantee, you can rest assured of purchase, myyshop will provide service for you all, welcome to myyshop.com

Air Jordan 7 Retro Size 10 Blk/Red Raptor - $34

100% Authentic Brand New in Box DS Air Jordan 7 Retro Raptor colorway

Never Worn, only been tried on the day I bought them back in 2002

$35Firm; no trades

http://www.myyshop.com/productlist.asp?id=s14 (Jordan)




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki