backtop

Print 119 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Jun 4 at 10:43 AM

Vehicles like the Chevy Volt, under the Senate's new EV bill would qualify for a $10,000 federal EV tax credit.

Unlike some measures, the EV bills enjoy broad bipartisan support and were proposed by an alliance of Democrats and Republicans.  (Source: PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP)
Federal funding could be a big boost to the fledgling industry, says proponents

Whether you view it as an investment in the future or a dangerous example of mild socialism, since the 1780s the U.S. has invested in new technologies, often handing businesses vast sums of money to get off the ground.  Among the most famous examples of this was land grants to the railroad companies in the 1800s that totaled to what would today be billions of dollars in value.  The resulting intercontinental railroad system helped turn the U.S. into a world power.

Yesterday, the U.S. House and Senate introduced legislation to continue this trend by financing the transportation wave of the future -- electric vehicles.  A bipartisan group consisting of Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., and Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. proposed the legislation, which would offer $10B USD in customer incentives to buy EVs and offer money to manufacturers to build charging stations.  

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-S.D., is one of the main sponsors of the Senate version of the bill.  Surprisingly, no Michigan representatives were involved in the mix.

The Senate version also includes a provision to bump the current tax credit of $7,500 USD for buying an EV up to $10,000 USD.  The House version includes a bump to $9,500 instead, but only if they use $2,000 of the credit to buy and install charging equipment.

The credits would apply to the electric vehicles that are arriving before the year's end.  Nissan is deploying its 2011 Nissan Leaf EV this year in the U.S., but the vehicles have a long pre-order list and are already sold out for the year.  GM will unleash its EV, the 2011 Chevy Volt, in November.

Under the bill, cities could apply to be one of five to eight so-called "deployment communities."  Selecting cities would receive $800M USD to $1B USD to build charging stations for electric vehicles.  The Senate version would offer $250M USD grants to 15 selected municipalities and cities.

Biggert comments, "From plug-in hybrids to all-electric cars, the auto industry is moving quickly to meet consumer demand for more efficient vehicles that cost less to fuel up.  But our electric and transportation infrastructure must keep pace with technology.  [This legislation] will help regional communities establish themselves as models for the development and installation of the next generation of transportation infrastructure, including public charging stations."

A Senate version of the bill offers $1.5B USD for research into batteries, with the goal of producing a battery that can go 500 miles on a single charge.  

Overall, the bill would bump the government's investment in EVs up from $25B USD to $35B USD.  That's not accounting for the currently offered $7,500 tax credit on EVs that could account for a few hundred million dollars in expenses as well.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
waste
By rvd2008 on 5/28/2010 10:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of wasting money on car credit, which will simply be eaten up by jacked-up car prices, this money should go directly into infrastructure, bypassing automakers and dealers altogether. For EVs to take off we need charging posts everywhere, and they are not difficult to do. Once range anxiety is a past EV economics will kick in and dethrone ICE. And to help the matters and pay off this investment we simply need to hike gas tax. No new debt!




RE: waste
By rcc on 5/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: waste
By clovell on 5/28/2010 11:44:27 AM , Rating: 4
Easy there - investing in infrastructure is a more governmental thing to do, and far more palatable than giving back $10k in tax money.


RE: waste
By clovell on 5/28/2010 11:45:44 AM , Rating: 3
But - I digress - the point is, that we're better off not spending money we don't have, in this case.


RE: waste
By rcc on 5/28/2010 1:59:00 PM , Rating: 3
True. Buying candy for the kids is great when you are flush. Doesn't make much sense if you can't pay the power bill tho.


RE: waste
By foolsgambit11 on 5/31/2010 1:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think of it more like putting money in the kids' college funds when you have to put the power bill on a credit card. Still probably not the smart thing to do.


RE: waste
By Fracture on 6/1/2010 10:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, just more Keynesian economics messing with the free market. This is clearly something not in the public interest since it does not change the demographic of people that can afford the car.


RE: waste
By rcc on 5/28/2010 1:57:13 PM , Rating: 1
Infrastructure is good. It's better when it's not money targeted at a small percentage of the population, but at least it has the potential to benefit a lot more people in the future.

And regardless of what happens with EVs, our power grid is in sad need of modernization and upgrade.


RE: waste
By rvd2008 on 5/28/2010 11:56:40 AM , Rating: 2
You pay tax when you purchase gas and money goes to build roads, bridges, highways. It has been like that always. This is why government exist in the first place. While not perfect, it's definitely better that "no tax no roads" situation. No tax choice aka degradation and disintegration.


RE: waste
By AEvangel on 5/28/2010 12:24:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It has been like that always.


Only for the last 100 years, prior to that their was roads built by private citizens and companies with out all the graft and corruption we have now. Don't kid yourself that only Govt will provide. Cause really if you look at their track record their failing to provide those basic services that you indicate.


RE: waste
By Ananke on 5/28/2010 12:40:12 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, the private roads have been property of the king/emperor. Btw. citizens life have been possession of the crown also...so you don't know anything about the really free capitalism, you should live in Europe to study some history.


RE: waste
By AEvangel on 5/29/2010 2:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dude, the private roads have been property of the king/emperor. Btw. citizens life have been possession of the crown also...so you don't know anything about the really free capitalism, you should live in Europe to study some history.


Really, for the last 100 years?? I need to learn my history?? Seriously, when was the last time the a King owned anything in this country? Hmmm...that would be roughly about 225 years.

Perhaps you need to go learn your history their champ.


RE: waste
By boffo on 5/28/2010 12:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only for the last 100 years, prior to that their was roads built by private citizens and companies with out all the graft and corruption we have now.


Learn your history. There was direct investment by the federal government in infrastructure, including road building, going back to the beginning of the country (e.g., the Cumberland Road and the post road system). In addition to development of interstate road systems, canal building was seen as an essential government function by most and was quite heavily invested in; Adam Smith, incidentally, also saw the need for government provision of infrastructure. That's not to say there wasn't political controversy over it from time to time, but that's hardly different than today. The idea that this is somehow an invention of modern American is a myth.


RE: waste
By AEvangel on 5/29/2010 3:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
Many people claim that the government must provide roads, because if the free market provided them, they'd have to put toll booths on every corner in order to make them profitable.

Granted, in a truly free-market transportation system, toll roads will play a role. But the myth of widespread toll-booth proliferation is false because there are a multitude of ways a road-financer can get a return on investment that are far less intrusive.

Consider your typical business: they want to make it easy and convenient to be able to get to them. Many businesses already pay for parking lots and the roads that run through them, and don't charge a thing to use them. To them, the concrete they must lay for their customers is just another business expense.

Homeowners, likewise, want to be able to get to their homes. Neighbors who share a street can pay for whatever they can agree to, be it a narrow dirt lane with ditches, or a 40-foot wide slab of smooth cement with curbs, sidewalks, and underground storm sewers, or whatever they choose.

The important point to keep in mind is: if a street is needed and wanted, then the free market will find a way to provide it. Remember the mathematician in Jurassic Park who philosophized: "Life always finds a way"? Ditto for free enterprise: the market always finds a way. The Internet "information superhighway" is an excellent example of a self-supporting, profitable, widely-available public resource that came about without governmental support.

What would the world be like if government had never intervened in the transportation industry in the first place? It's interesting to contemplate. Certainly, the private car would still play a major role; people love their cars – that's a fact. However, there would likely not be a wholesale paving of paradise, like we see now in most major cities, complete with 24-7 traffic jams. And of course, you'd have all those tax dollars back that the government is stealing from you now.

But the biggest difference would be a wide variety of available alternatives. Odds are, you'd have many fast, inexpensive, safe, convenient, efficient choices in how to get from point A to point B. (Or at least as many choices as you have in deciding what to drink along the way.)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/woods-d1.html


RE: waste
By khz on 5/31/2010 11:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Internet "information superhighway" is an excellent example of a self-supporting, profitable, widely-available public resource that came about without governmental support.


ARPANET, the predecessor of the modern Internet, was a DARPA (U.S. Government) project. I recommend you read a little about the history of the Internet.


RE: waste
By foolsgambit11 on 5/31/2010 1:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
While your logic sounds fine, I wonder if it isn't the same kind of flight of fancy that supporters of communism have - i.e., sounds great on paper but wouldn't ever work that way in the real world, because human nature gets in the way. Take, for instance, the case where 10 people live on a block, and 8 want to get a road. Do they not let the 2 use the road? And why should the person first on the street help pay for the road all the way to the end of the street?

I assume the interstate system would, if ever made at all, be toll roads. I don't even want to think about how much it would cost to cross the country with a toll ever couple of miles.

While businesses might directly support a parking lot and a couple of roads around them, they receive a benefit from many more roads than that. How would you monetize that? How could they pay their proportionate share of that development?

There may be something to be said for turning over the maintenance of roads to private entities with a vested interest in maintaining those roads (look at Adam Smith's talk about transportation development in roads and canals, for instance), but the initial development is almost always handled better (by which I mean, produces the greatest good for the greatest number) by government. To drive the point home, just look at the state of roads in countries with little to no government investment. It's probably no coincidence that the richest countries in the world have been transportation subsidizers.


RE: waste
By AEvangel on 6/1/2010 8:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While your logic sounds fine, I wonder if it isn't the same kind of flight of fancy that supporters of communism have - i.e., sounds great on paper but wouldn't ever work that way in the real world, because human nature gets in the way. Take, for instance, the case where 10 people live on a block, and 8 want to get a road. Do they not let the 2 use the road? And why should the person first on the street help pay for the road all the way to the end of the street?


It would work since each community would have private contracts that everyone would negotiate and sign. In regards to who would pay more yes it would be worked out in the contract, but I would assume that the person at the end might have to pay more. Why is it my responsibility to subsidize the coast of the road to their home if the choose to live farther from the main road?

The same could be said of our current system, why must the person living their entire life in one state or area pay for Highways across the Country. Most will say for the betterment of society, but really would not the additional income that he might have had if not stolen from him been spent to the betterment of society as well?

quote:
I assume the interstate system would, if ever made at all, be toll roads. I don't even want to think about how much it would cost to cross the country with a toll ever couple of miles.


How would you assume their would be one every couple of miles?? This sounds to me like your dismissing it simply because you can't grasp the concept. The simple fact is those who would pay the most are those that use it the most which seems fair to me. Why should I pay the same in road taxes as someone that drives twice as much. Did they not use the road more and therefore contribute more to it's damage or need for repair. An if you going to say well what about emergency services that must come to me if needed, well if I choose not to maintain the roads or provide them ease of access to my property, once again the only person that will suffer is me.

quote:
To drive the point home, just look at the state of roads in countries with little to no government investment. It's probably no coincidence that the richest countries in the world have been transportation subsidizers.


Yes, good point as our country goes bankrupt subsidizing all of this infrastructure that is now falling apart around us. I can only assume your referencing third world countries using system similar to ours already but with much more corruption. So I would agree that they have much weaker road system then we do but that is not as a result of less subsidizing, but of more graft and corruption.

Is it simple, no but neither is our current system and it's apparently not working as roads are getting worse and worse and Govt is going Bankrupt.


RE: waste
By rvd2008 on 5/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: waste
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2010 1:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Education is provided by public schools for kids.


Well obviously YOU did. Some of us had parents who actually wanted us to get an education, thus private schooling.


RE: waste
By FITCamaro on 5/28/2010 11:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
There are some public schools left that provide a good education.

But I sure don't plan to send any kids to one. It's gonna be private or home schooled.


RE: waste
By knutjb on 5/28/2010 1:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
Read this before you continue to think all these taxes are just wonderful.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/30653464...

Our tax code is so distorted with victim driven bias against those with money. When the government overtaxes the wealthy the poor and middle classes are the ones who really pay for it. Reality blows for the progressive social justice crowd.


RE: waste
By cruisin3style on 5/29/2010 12:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
What this article proves is that, for about 50 years, the US was able to collect a consistent amount of taxes through other means than high rates on the rich. Is that because the rich are so much richer? Is that because the economy boomed? A LOT of variables here. What it definitely does not prove is that if we increased taxation on the rich tax revenue would fall, nor GDP.

I'm no expert and I'm sure there is a lot of information I don't know or have, and I'm not saying tax revenue or GDP wouldn't fall because I have no clue, but as far as that article goes it's pretty thin.


RE: waste
By rcc on 5/28/2010 2:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
I have to presume that you misunderstood my point.

I have no problem with taxes on vehicles and their fuel going to be used for the roads that they drive on.

I have a real problem with specific taxes on one type of vehicles to subsidize another type.


RE: waste
By rvd2008 on 5/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: waste
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2010 3:49:09 PM , Rating: 1
Right. And the best way to spur competition is to take huge sums of money the government doesn't really have, and throw it at potential buyers. Because we all know NOTHING causes private sector competition better than the Government getting involved!

Ummm, what??

This isn't competition, it's a bribe. And hey, asshole, for the last time; take your gas tax idea and shove it up your ass! Ok? How many times are you going to bring up the same stupid fucking idea and have it shot down?

Or maybe I should support the idea. That way when the rest of us finally snap from paying taxes for everyone else's EV car, it will be really easy to identify the enemy. Simply drag anyone out of an EV you find, kicking and screaming, and put a bullet in their face .


RE: waste
By cbdh19 on 5/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: waste
By Solandri on 5/29/2010 6:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
Look, I'm usually pro-free market and all. But what we have here is a technology in its infancy but which can't grow because a competing technology has had decades to grow and advance. It's a chicken and egg thing, like how in theory optical transistors could be made much faster, smaller, and use less power than electrical transistors. But because silicon-based circuitry has had a 30 year head start on optical circuitry, R&D into optical computing is stunted.

Regardless of whether you believe or don't believe in AGW, oil is a ship which is going to sail. Oil production in the U.S. has been declining since the 1970s. In many parts of the world it's been in decline since the 1990s and 2000s. I'm not talking about peak oil or how much oil we could extract if we were willing to pay $1000 per barrel for it. I'm talking about affordable oil. To maintain our rate of economic growth, it requires energy be available at a certain price point. Oil is increasingly unable to meet that price point, and I don't see anyone suggesting that it will suddenly drop in price.

Unlike oil which has a long-term upward trend in price, the alternatives (renewables, nuclear, and hopefully fusion) have a long-term downward trend in price. So we're going to have to get off oil at some point in the future. I would rather we plan ahead for that eventuality and get some R&D done on alternatives now so as to minimize the shock of the transition. I do not want us to be caught again with our pants down as oil shoots up in price 2.5x in a year, and we're left unable to do anything except pay for it because we have no alternatives.

Is a $10k rebate on electric vehicles the best way to do it? Honestly, I don't know. I don't think so. But neither do I think doing nothing and leaving it completely up to the free market is the way to go. The free market usually makes decisions based on timeframes of months or occasionally years. To make decisions based on a timeframe of decades, you pretty much have to rely on government, as much as I think they're incompetent at most of what they do. Subsidies and rebates are the way government accomplishes that (though personally I prefer taxation, like increasing gas taxes). Calling them bribes ignores the greater frame of their rationale.


RE: waste
By Kurz on 5/28/2010 11:32:07 AM , Rating: 2
Though remember new debt has to be constantly made to cover both the old debt and the interest rate that is being charged on the old balance of debt.

We have an exponential system.
That is only 30 years old (Since we went off the gold standard)

I am dismayed you think we can increase gas taxes punish majority of America so a minority can get 10k discount on a EV vechicle. That is not fair at all.


RE: waste
By rvd2008 on 5/28/2010 12:10:22 PM , Rating: 1
Where did I say 10k credit for few rich EVers? I **OPPOSE** such tax credit! And I explained why in my first post.
I am all for "pay as you go" approach. Wanna start another war? PAY FOR IT FIRST! And not with treasure bills. Gas tax I suggested will go towards charging INFRASTRUCTURE. Towns and cities will own the charging posts and will receive the payment.


RE: waste
By rcc on 5/28/2010 2:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gas tax I suggested will go towards charging INFRASTRUCTURE


Ah, but why? Again you are taxing one group to subsidize another. When there is an economic need to provide the services, private industry will step up. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of government owned and run gas stations.

Infrastructure, on the other hand, I don't have as big a problem with. But in this case the infrastructure is really the power grid, and everyone will benefit from it's upgrading.


RE: waste
By lelias2k on 5/28/2010 6:09:53 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I don't have kids. Should I not pay taxes that go towards education? (wait, I actually pay MORE taxes because I don't have kids...)

I have private insurance. Can I have my Medicare back?

I don't live in Louisiana. They better not use MY tax money to clean the worse ecological disaster in this country's history to clean the mess caused by the oil industry.

Seriously, we all have to wake up and quit resisting CHANGE.


RE: waste
By chadwick21 on 5/29/2010 8:54:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
(wait, I actually pay MORE taxes because I don't have kids...)


While I agree with the theme of your post, I'd have to argue with the specific part I quoted. Care to enlighten me?

and yes, I am baiting you

/evilgrin


RE: waste
By rcc on 6/4/2010 10:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
While the rest of his post is bleh, he's probably correct on the tax issue.

No deductions, etc.

And if you are a non-home owner without kids it really sucks. I was in that boat for years, good income, no kids, no house, no deductions. Taxes were very simple, but very high.

All that being said, I realized at the time that most of the things that I was helping to pay for (but not necessarily getting) was a long term benefit to me and everyone else. More or less.

Schools, yep, I like working with literate people. Although overall I'm really not happy about the edumacashun the system is putting out in the last 10 years or so.

: )


RE: waste
By Kurz on 5/28/2010 2:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say anything about the tax credit.
My disagreement was mainly with how you intend to fund the infrastructure, by unfairly taxing people who drive gasoline cars.


RE: waste
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2010 12:02:54 PM , Rating: 3
It's not the governments job to push American's into politically correct automobiles with outrageous sums of subsidies like this.

quote:
And to help the matters and pay off this investment we simply need to hike gas tax. No new debt!


Yeah umm, how about no?? Enough with the class warfare and putting good American's at odds with each other. Why should I get taxed even more to help YOU drive your goddamn electric car?

The best solution is for the government to just stay out of the car business altogether! Electric cars WILL be available when they are viable. Obviously if the Government has to hand out tens of thousands in subsidies, it's not ready for prime time in our driveways.

P.s. that picture of McCain practically hugging Obama makes me sick. Hey, dumbass, this is why you lost the election! We don't WANT you working with Socialists, we don't WANT you being friends with the enemy.


RE: waste
By rvd2008 on 5/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: waste
By AEvangel on 5/28/2010 12:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ha-ha, this is stupid. You already pay taxes, ain't you? Like schools, police, roads, bridges, army, etc. Are you blind and deaf or just living under the rock?


So one wrong makes all the others right??? Yes, we are paying for taxes, all of which imho are unnecessary and theft. Another tax is the last thing we need, how about we cut Govt spending and fund these Oh, so needed infrastructure upgrades you think we need. Morons like you kill me...tax more so we can fix something we already pay taxes to have fixed.


RE: waste
By theArchMichael on 5/28/2010 1:13:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes, we are paying for taxes, all of which imho are unnecessary and theft.


If we didn't pay taxes, you would find out what theft really is when one of those hooligans who was supposed to be going to school, jumps you and takes your sh]t.


RE: waste
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2010 1:41:21 PM , Rating: 3
lol I think some hooligans would find out what lead tastes like if they tried that around here..

Honestly you guys use the lowest most pathetic imagery in your leftist pro-tax arguments. Yeah gangs of hooligans would roam the streets if we had a sensibly budgeted government. Give me a break!

I'm sure he didn't mean "ALL" taxes were theft. Just the level we have currently sure as hell is.


RE: waste
By theArchMichael on 5/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: waste
By AEvangel on 5/29/2010 2:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Since the OP stated that all taxes are theft and unecessary, I was stating that a country without those SOCIAL services would most likely be a dangerous and lawless place. Because things that we take for granted like police and ambulatory services, public education, etc. have inherent benefits which he/she may not have considered.


I had considered them, and since are Federal Govt does not need to provide almost any of the basic Social Services, then the taxes they collect from me are theft. The idea of the Federal Income Tax for example is theft plain and simple. I have no problem with reasonable State Taxes to handle those basic Social functions of a Civilized society, but my issue is with the blatant theft of my labor by the Federal Govt to fund idiotic things like this.


RE: waste
By thurston on 5/29/2010 10:47:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I was stating that a country without those SOCIAL services would most likely be a dangerous and lawless place.


What you don't understand is that Reclaimer77 doesn't give a shit. Anybody that fucks with him is getting a face full of lead.


RE: waste
By thurston on 5/29/2010 10:47:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I was stating that a country without those SOCIAL services would most likely be a dangerous and lawless place.


What you don't understand is that Reclaimer77 doesn't give a shit. Anybody that fucks with him is getting a face full of lead.


RE: waste
By rvd2008 on 5/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: waste
By lelias2k on 5/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: waste
By AEvangel on 6/1/2010 8:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, do you really think you can be faster than a guy with a finger in the trigger?


So by your logic it wont matter if we have these social services since the average police response time is 45+ minutes or more at best, by that time the trigger in the finger wins anyway???

So what benefit did I get from those social services?? I guess they would come along and catch him after the fact, which might act as a deterrent to some, but what if I had all that extra income and so did everyone else, would not the prosperity act as a deterrent as well. Since the criminal may have never felt a need to steal from me if I had the money to simply invest in a business which would have employed the criminal and thus never given the criminal a reason to rob me.

However if your referring to a person with no regards to society or preservation of ones self then we can eliminate the idea that fear of capture would act as a deterrent.


RE: waste
By room200 on 5/31/2010 12:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
Ohhhh, look. Reclaimer77; the internet tuff guy.


RE: waste
By Kurz on 5/28/2010 2:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
As long as you have rule of law, right to property, low taxes with plenty of opportunitites. There will be no need for gangs.

Legalize drugs, the gangs surrounding drugs will disappear within a short few years. So instead of violent crime you'll just have users that for the most part will only be harming their own families instead of an entire community with the violence they themselves are funding.


RE: waste
By rvd2008 on 5/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: waste
By rcc on 5/28/2010 2:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
It would appear that you will have to provide the answer to this question.


RE: waste
By Kurz on 5/28/2010 2:36:10 PM , Rating: 2
The question is which is sustainable?
Your view point of taxation, Wealth Distrubution, a left ideal or Teaparty/ right wing where the government lets the people make choices with their money.

I bet you going to say Right Wing/Teaparty.
If you don't agree with me you are a bigger fool than all of us.


RE: waste
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: waste
By rvd2008 on 5/28/2010 1:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure you will DIE faster. And alone! Somewhere under your rock, please, so not to disturb good citizens and save on your funeral some tax money.


RE: waste
By Kurz on 5/28/2010 3:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
Though I agree with his point of view.
I don't agree with how he delievered it.

I have to say you need to educate yourself on history, Captialism, taxes, Money creation,... I could go on.


RE: waste
By rvd2008 on 5/28/2010 3:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
This is not about capitalism. I was talking about taxation. There are not interchangeable. So, please do not substitute. Taxes is a basis of any state, weather you want it or not. It is a fact! If you disagree, provide some example to prove your point.


RE: waste
By Kurz on 5/28/2010 4:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
Example Gas tax is inplace to provide funds to maintain our roadways. What you proposed was to tax Gas cars to provide funding for EV cars.

One distubutes wealth the other is a fair tax to maintain modernize the road way.


RE: waste
By lelias2k on 5/28/2010 6:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't he suggest tax to provide funding for EV infra-structure???


RE: waste
By Kurz on 5/29/2010 8:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about?


RE: waste
By room200 on 5/31/2010 12:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People like you being allowed to vote is what's lead to where we are today.


And you actually had the nerve to insult someone's education?


RE: waste
By clovell on 5/28/2010 12:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, half of us Americans pay taxes - and that half isn't so keen on handing out $10k of our tax money to anyone who buys an EV.

Infrastructure upgrades and maintenance are well-within the scope of today's government - when they can be justified (like bridges, police departments, schools, etc.). Giving $10k for folks to buy an EV is outside that accepted scope - especially in today's economic conditions.


RE: waste
By theArchMichael on 5/28/2010 1:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
half of us Americans pay taxes - and that half isn't so keen on handing out $10k of our tax money to anyone who buys an EV.


Speak for yourself, I think this assumption isn't true even in the general sense.

Otherwise though, I agree that this plan doesn't really encapsulate, what I would think would be, a more comprehensive plan for moving reducing fossil fuel reliance. It seems a bit incomplete to those ends.


RE: waste
By clovell on 5/28/2010 3:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
Right, and in half-assing it - it's just a waste of money. Ergo, by saying that half of us paying taxes isn't keen on this idea, I'm likely speaking for not only myself, but also for you as well.

Assuming you pay taxes ;)


RE: waste
By theArchMichael on 5/28/2010 4:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Assuming you pay taxes ;)


Not in years... but I get your point lol jk.

Enjoy your memorial day man :-)


RE: waste
By Jedi2155 on 5/28/2010 5:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
As an engineer, I believe I pay my fair share of taxes. On that note, I do support this bill so I think its wrong of you to say that you are speaking for all of us. Although I plan on taking advantage of this tax credit so that does vary my opinion somewhat.


RE: waste
By Kurz on 5/28/2010 5:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly your biased.


RE: waste
By cbdh19 on 5/28/2010 10:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
Learn how to spell -- you're (you are). And apparently you're objective? Please!?

The ultimate libertarian model of society would have each car with its own individual snowplow, no cops, no fireman no public works (there is no social/public good, there are just individuals, according to this view) -- just individuals holed up with a gun and ammo...

Of course, libertarianism fails to grasp that individual actions, when taken as a whole, can add up to something completely different than the intent of individuals. Take the "freedom" of the automobile. Everyone hops in to enjoy their freedom at the same time and you have gridlock, and a complete lack of freedom. Analytically and politically impoverished ideology -- and, typically, there are no true economic libertarians (the so-called free-market libertarian always comes out for trillions of tax dollars to be thrown at the U.S. military)

Finally, in anticipation of the predictable charge of "paternalism": Libertarians are just as paternalistic as so-called liberals. Take Obama's election: The economic libertarians' response -- We "know" better than the electorate that elected him. Do what we "know" is right for you, and reject "socialism" goes the extremely paternalistic libertarian mantra - complete and total hypocrisy...


RE: waste
By Kurz on 5/29/2010 9:39:59 AM , Rating: 2
First off this is an informal setting. Get the stick out of your rear end in regards to grammar.

>.> I never said I was libertarian.
I am a constitutionalist, I believe in states rights above the Federal government. This is yet another violation of the given powers of the Federal Government.

The freedom of automobile is kept in check with the cost of driving one. The cost of time to drive the automobil is another cost. Since it costs you money to sit in traffic unproductive and the cost of the gas to idle.

The Military has one purpose and one purpose only to defend and wage war. However its constantly used to police other countries and force our political ideals in the form of force and firepower.

LOL! at the Paternalism.
I believe in a uncentralised structure to economic policy. A economic structure controlled by prices and costs. This extends to everything! No more price controls, since they have the opposite effect of what the people who enacted them for.

Actually that mentality is we know we want freedom form socialists telling us how to live our lives. Forcing us to do things they believe is right. Sorry knowledge is the largest scarisity in an economic system, it is impossible for someone know how to dictate prices within that system.

Though I should quote a famous quote by Milton Friedman

"Sooner or later you run out of 'other? people's money'"


RE: waste
By cbdh19 on 5/29/2010 5:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
What you clearly believe in is the power of money over everything. A society rooted in a value system based on a singular value -- where absolutely everything is reducible to that value -- is a society in trouble, and in serious danger of self-destructing...


RE: waste
By Kurz on 5/29/2010 7:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
Wow I guess you don't know much about history.
Money is a claim on Human Labor.
We have had money for thousands and thousands of years.

In that span of time we have progressed to higher and higher standards of living. We live much longer now in part due to money since there was an incentive to research and produce products that lead to these advancements.

The only thing that is in trouble is the current monetary system that isn't based on sound money (Its been only 40 years). Which has lead to devaluing the claims on human labor. This has lead to anger and civil unrest.

The only reason USA is so healthy as a society is because of the wealth we as a nation amassed during our prosperous times as a nation.

I love my family, I love what I do.
Though it would be folly to think if there was no incentive to do anything would we have all advancements we have.
Moon, Computers, Medicine.

Humanity needs to be constantly pushed in order to stand living. Ever seen a person out of work? They are probably the most depressed people in the world.

Money is what makes the world goes round.
To think you can have any effect in changing people's minds you fighting most of humanity.


RE: waste
By Jedi2155 on 6/1/2010 6:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
If money were universal and all similarly valued then yes, I could see your point. I once thought as you did on the value of money being the equalizing force however the issue with it is that it is merely a representation of goods that is easily changed. If everything had a perfect cost relative to the amount of work required for such products to be produced, then this could be simple but we live far from such a perfect world due to inflation, hoarding, and various other things that prevent money from being an instantaneous indicator of actual worth.


RE: waste
By Kurz on 6/1/2010 7:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
There was a time when it was.
You could put cash in a safe deposit box and it'll hold the same value. Since the gold window was closed by Nixon Inflation has sprung up.

Inflation only occurs when there is war or when the money is no longer backed.

I suggest you look up "money creation" in youtube.


RE: waste
By Jedi2155 on 6/3/2010 11:31:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'm familiar with money creation from my college economics classes however I also believe that the pro's CAN outweigh the cons.


RE: waste
By theArchMichael on 5/28/2010 12:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
we don't WANT you being friends with the enemy

Wow...

quote:
The best solution is for the government to just stay out of the car business altogether! Electric cars WILL be available when they are viable. Obviously if the Government has to hand out tens of thousands in subsidies, it's not ready for prime time in our driveways.


I think the idea here is that there is more at stake than just lowering hurdles to introduce a new technology. Having a decreased reliance on fossil fuels has many direct benefits to the users of these EVs, and everybody else.

-Having a significant number of EVs replace traditional ICE cars decreases demands for gas, which means you would pay less at the pump (or maybe the same, if the OPs gas tax was implemented).
-Also there would be less particulate air pollutants (not CO2), how much depending on the generation source.
-There would be more demand for new electric power generation, which creates more incentives for companies to build new power plants. And such as it is now, I think power companies with a diverse portfolio that include nuclear and other alternative energies are doing quite well. Also your enemy , has suggested further expansion in nuclear energy.
-We would decrease our reliance on oil and lowering the hurdle of EV adoption for other nations, so they could do the same.

The prime time to put plans in place to start moving towards alternative energy technologies was in the 1970's. We've been the victims of price fixing, collusion, speculation, etc. for some time. I think what some would argue is not viable is a situation where the nation is financially and politically compromised at the will of outside forces.


RE: waste
By chadwick21 on 5/29/2010 9:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
So, "enough of the class warfare and putting good American's at odds with each other"... as long as you are Republican right?


RE: waste
By sp33dklz on 5/28/2010 2:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
When and where did you forget that this company is owned by the government?

-Josh


RE: waste
By KCjoker on 5/28/2010 6:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
People seem to not discuss where the power will come from either.


RE: waste
By Lazarus Dark on 5/29/2010 3:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but they also need to invest that in transfering PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION and FLEETS to EV. What difference does my 100 miles a week make when cops, taxis, school and city buses, work fleets like garbage trucks and city maintenence, and especially diesel big-rigs all still run on v8's or large-displacement combustion.

When ALL those are converted into EV, then I will consider getting an EV to drive to work for 100 or less miles a week and making my V8 a weekend warrior only. Otherwise, the impact of me getting an EV is a wash when all factors are considered (like where is the electricity actually coming from... coal).


RE: waste
By sleepeeg3 on 5/29/2010 11:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
This is a total waste. $10,000,000,000.00 in tax money to support something that is not efficient enough to support itself on its own. Tax credits slow down the progress of creating more efficient vehicles, when companies can already sell them at a profit with the government money. They also mean increased taxes, taking away money from everyone else and reducing our ability to develop clean alternatives.


Gotta love the hypocritical right
By cbdh19 on 5/28/2010 11:48:20 AM , Rating: 1
Gotta love it -- the same folks complaining about tax breaks for EVs here are the same folks who typically blindly support Pentagon largess and huge subsidies for the fossil fuel industries (which, BTW outsubsidize renewable energy forms in the U.S. about 3 to 1).

Me? I'm going to take my $10k and not feel a bit guilty about it.

A) because EVs are the right thing to do environmentally (going to power mine with a home solar system)AND economically -- the costs of air pollution are very high, and they ARE economic in nature;
B) Because I'll be leading a clean-energy revolution (don't give a crap about the inevitable and simplistic "elitist" charges I'll get), which is both environmentally AND politically (no more money to Gulf oil states like Saudia Arabia, etc.) the right thing to do;
C) my "big" subsidy will pale in comparison to the huge amounts the government wastes on funding the military in the Iraq, the Middle East (yes, we're there to protect our oil supplies, plain and simple!), sinking money into boondoggles like ethanol, etc.
D) Hello -- it's a tax break, NOT a direct handout, something which economic libertarians ought to support in order to be ideologically consistent...




RE: Gotta love the hypocritical right
By Kurz on 5/28/2010 12:21:32 PM , Rating: 3
Actually I don't support either big government or subsidies.
At least from the Federal Government.

Whats the point of a technology if it can't quite compete with cheaper alternatives? Though Since we subidise oil companies a fair bit its hard to see how much cheaper gas really is.

You can lead the clean energy revolution on your own without dipping into the collective pool of tax payer funds.
You'll be even more respected since you took a bigger economic hit for the privledge of driving the first few electric cars.

Yes it pales in comprison, though as a tax payer I still have a right to be Troubled by the mindset that is causing the ills of today's society. (IE the mentality oh someone else will pay for it).

Tax break, Hand out? Its still 10,000 dollars being transfered from American taxpayers to a small group of people. IE its still wealth transfer.

I guess I'll have to care for you craddle to grave don't I?


RE: Gotta love the hypocritical right
By Ananke on 5/28/2010 12:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't support YOURS big government, most likely another big government will soon come to you...you should start studying mandarin :)


RE: Gotta love the hypocritical right
By Kurz on 5/28/2010 1:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
? what was the point of your post?
Are you saying we should continue with the status quo?


RE: Gotta love the hypocritical right
By cbdh19 on 5/28/2010 10:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
I see, so every individual does everything, absolutely everything for him or herself without any support from others. We're all completely self-made, and we get to where get only because of what we, ourselves, have done...

Parents, friends, colleagues, people who've come before us in history and invented things that we use, and improve on, the society that we learn from and, yes, that we rely on -- both on micro and macro levels -- to support us when we're injured, sick, ill and can't do anything at all for ourselves, that's all a big mirage, doesn't exist. At least not for the hard-core "techie" libertarians here.

I can see the libertarian techie graduation speech now:

"Thank me, thank me, thank me. Sorry mom, dad, siblings friends, grandparents, educators who mentored me, coaches who coached me -- I did it ALL myself...."


RE: Gotta love the hypocritical right
By Kurz on 5/30/2010 9:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
Just saw this post.
Where the hell you get your misconceptions from?
That its completely Untrue.

All you need now is to call me racist there you have it the typical liberal response.

I guess you were never helped in life so You need the government to force people to help you. In my life people help each other without the need for monetary compensation.

I help people all the time without asking for anything.
Occasionally people insist so I take compensation to make them feel better. Your life must be so unfulfilling.


RE: Gotta love the hypocritical right
By AEvangel on 5/28/2010 1:03:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Gotta love it -- the same folks complaining about tax breaks for EVs here are the same folks who typically blindly support Pentagon largess and huge subsidies for the fossil fuel industries (which, BTW outsubsidize renewable energy forms in the U.S. about 3 to 1).


Nope, I'm against any type of war of aggression that we have had in the last 50 years and I don't agree to any subsidy for ANYONE.

quote:
A) because EVs are the right thing to do environmentally (going to power mine with a home solar system)AND economically -- the costs of air pollution are very high, and they ARE economic in nature;


LoL...your a fool, a 68 Buick Skylark would be better for the environment then driving a new EV, all the pollution it take to make your new EV is ten times worse then driving a used car, it's called recycling you might have heard of it.

quote:
B) Because I'll be leading a clean-energy revolution (don't give a crap about the inevitable and simplistic "elitist" charges I'll get), which is both environmentally AND politically (no more money to Gulf oil states like Saudia Arabia, etc.) the right thing to do;


Lawl, Your leading something but it's hardly clean, you need to look at the strip mining going on to get the lithium that goes into those EV batteries. In regards the oil we only get about a 1/3 of our Oil from those Gulf States. How about converting more older cars to NG which we have in plentiful supply here in the states. Driving an EV will have about as much impact on our oil consumption as if you were to drop dead tomorrow, practically none.

quote:
C) my "big" subsidy will pale in comparison to the huge amounts the government wastes on funding the military in the Iraq, the Middle East (yes, we're there to protect our oil supplies, plain and simple!), sinking money into boondoggles like ethanol, etc.


So let me get this straight, by your logic if I stole money from you, it's no big deal since Bernie Maddoff stole more from Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick. Good point, bottom line is theft is theft and it's wrong no matter how you want to justify it.

quote:
D) Hello -- it's a tax break, NOT a direct handout, something which economic libertarians ought to support in order to be ideologically consistent...


It's not a tax break it's a subsidy, a tax break would be if they made EVERYONE pay less money, not the 100k or so that will be tempted by the idiotic reason like you have given here into buying one of these pointless cars.


RE: Gotta love the hypocritical right
By cbdh19 on 5/28/2010 10:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
Hello, I'll be powering my EV with a home solar system!

Nice job of selective quoting my original post to conveniently leave out this key fact.


RE: Gotta love the hypocritical right
By AEvangel on 5/29/2010 2:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hello, I'll be powering my EV with a home solar system! Nice job of selective quoting my original post to conveniently leave out this key fact.


I didn't selective quote anything. I just figured when I pointed out how your new Leaf would be more damaging to the environment then recycling an older car the whole make me feel good idea of the Solar panels would fall under that but if you need that explained out as well...here it goes..the Solar panels only add to the larger carbon footprint that your non-environmental friendly Leaf has.

This Car is just another example of feel good marketing to make people buy and consume more. You really want to help the environment, recycle and older car and take all the money you saved and buy some trees and plant them.


RE: Gotta love the hypocritical right
By cbdh19 on 5/29/2010 5:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's hopeless arguing with the techie righties here, who are completely convinced of their righteousness and are clearly used to mostly preaching to the choir (how is it when someone actually challenges you guys here on "your own" turf? not used to it, eh?) -- can't believe how many of them there are.

Do some research: Solar panels' payback in terms of their carbon footprint in about 18 months (and, if they're built with energy produced by renewable forms, hydro, etc. -- which is the case with some panels, including ours, the payback is even shorter). After that, they produce carbon free electricity for 20 to 30 years or more!

A 100-percent solar charged car (which ours will be) won't produce any CO2, NOx, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, etc. local pollutants that you suck 24/7 on the road, and in your home if you live in an urban area. In other words, it's not all about CO2 -- ICEs are responsible for many toxins.

As for "recycling", I've been driving the same 1992 Acura Integra since I bought it new 18 years ago -- it's going to die within the next three to five years. At which point in time it will have to be replaced. Yes, we live in a car-based society, though I bike to work frequently, and we do need a car - in reference to your snide "anti-tree hugger" comment about planting trees -- a simplistic character attack, totally ineffective, by the way.... The carbon footprint to produce the EV to replace my Integra will be extremely similar to the one to produce an ICE -- but the EV will be air pollution free! Meaning myself, and everyone around will benefit from cleaner air. The more people who do this (and it is completely realistic for millions of people who live in the American West/Southwest and other places), the healthier we'll all be. And, here's a bone to the only thing that matters is money folks here -- we'll save on healthcare costs associated with air pollution (these ARE significant). In fact, they're quite a few solar-charged drivers already out there -- http://solarchargeddriving.com/news/people.html


By AEvangel on 5/30/2010 2:49:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
n reference to your snide "anti-tree hugger" comment about planting trees -- a simplistic character attack, totally ineffective, by the way...


It was not meant as an attack or a snide comment, but just a suggestion of a truly simpler way to spend the money and help the environment. Then on a car which will end up producing more pollution in the long run(even with your solar power charging system)then if you simply kept your Acura running or even converting the Acura over to Electric or NG.

You also need to consider the environmental impact of Lithium mining and the disposable of those batteries ever 2-3 years, since they really aren't at least at this time worth recycling to the companies unless we subsidizes that as well.

I'm not anti EV or Hybrid, but I am anti people thinking that buying a new car is better for mother earth and everyone around them. Also I'm completely against the Fed Govt stealing my money to allow auto companies to sell their product more effectively.


By room200 on 5/31/2010 12:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
Get used to it. There are a bunch of right wing nutjobs on this site. They typically rail against the common man and most shill for big business because they've been fooled into thinking "Hey I better support unbridled freemaket capitalism if I want to be filthy rich one day." Hoping to become one of the future rich. Most are for a rude awakening.


By clovell on 5/28/2010 1:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
> A) because EVs are the right thing to do environmentally (going to power mine with a home solar system)AND economically -- the costs of air pollution are very high, and they ARE economic in nature;

Right, but the economics of runaway debt and spending are more immediate. EVs will have their day in the sun, but it's not shining right now.

> B) Because I'll be leading a clean-energy revolution (don't give a crap about the inevitable and simplistic "elitist" charges I'll get), which is both environmentally AND politically (no more money to Gulf oil states like Saudia Arabia, etc.) the right thing to do;

Or, instead of supporting a measure that would hurt crippling of the American economy, you could buy efficient ICE, and support domestic drilling.

> C) my "big" subsidy will pale in comparison to the huge amounts the government wastes on funding the military in the Iraq, the Middle East (yes, we're there to protect our oil supplies, plain and simple!), sinking money into boondoggles like ethanol, etc.

Hypocrisy on the right? How about the left? I thought Obama was going to pull us out and stop wasting money over there? Further, we're not there to protect oil supplies - we get less than 10% of our oil from Iraq, and Obama had previously before the rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, supported domestic drilling (ergo, why would he bother with Iraq, if he's only there for oil?). All that's a red herring, though. This whole concept of , "well, if we're spending money on A, then it only makes sense to spend money on B" is the kind of logic that got us into this overspending mess.

> D) Hello -- it's a tax break, NOT a direct handout, something which economic libertarians ought to support in order to be ideologically consistent...

It's a tax CREDIT. Let's get the budget under control first(which exists in reality), before we worry about ideology.

In the end, if you want to take advantage of it, go ahead. If you don't, I promise you somebody else will, and you'll just miss out. Hell - I'd do it. But for the bill - it's a dumb move right now.


The Kingfish
By clovell on 5/28/2010 10:38:47 AM , Rating: 4
A chicken in every pot, a car in every driveway... Not entirely, but come on - $10k in tax credits for EVs? This is outrageous!

We don't NEED this stuff right now - we NEED to embrace fiscal responsibility. This is coming out of taxpayer's wallets. For chrissakes I just - I don't see how this remotely justifiable. WTF is wrong with this country?




RE: The Kingfish
By Breathless on 5/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: The Kingfish
By quiksilvr on 5/28/2010 11:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
Oh God here they come...(runs and hides)


RE: The Kingfish
By Breathless on 5/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: The Kingfish
By Kurz on 5/28/2010 11:19:20 AM , Rating: 2
You cant run and hide from a economic meltdown.
Greece couldn't do it, how can we?


RE: The Kingfish
By MeesterNid on 5/28/2010 11:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
Couldn't agree more!

Can't remember who said this, but it's so true "we don't need better politicians we just need some honest people"


RE: The Kingfish
By theArchMichael on 5/28/2010 12:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're right in a way because of how this is being done because of the way it's compromised.
Basically we're (the people at large) are getting, as benefits:
-increased access to transportation with cheaper fuel cost (for now)
-reduction in pollution, how much depending on the energy source at generation
- AND a new interest (by government and private sector) in non fossil fuel energy generation (nuclear) that were previously off the table

BUT I think what's missing here is ownership of national infrastructure utilities. I don't mean nationalization, I mean that I think it would be good for the government to own power lines and transportation conduits and have them managed and supplied by private companies, who would generate power, be hired under maintenance agreements, etc.. If the grid belonged to the people we could upgrade, expand and manage it more easily and I think a major concern is what effect all these cars will have on the hodge podge grid that we have right now.

I live in the city, but outside DC they are doing something like this with a toll road. The counties are paying a contractor to build the toll road and then they are "leasing" it to a management company which basically runs and repairs the road as necessary. So there is profit for the company, but no ownership in the actual road. It also limits the governments liability and administrative costs and employee management, etc.

But even for internet and telecoms it still applies. I'm not saying the tax credit is
quote:
bad
. But if your going to do something like this I think it would be better to go all in. We gave telecoms all that money to expand internet infrastructure to rural areas, infrastructure which THEY STILL OWN, mind you. Then same these a$$holes, oppose net neutrality under the premise that they OWN all the infrastructure and they should be able to do whatever they want.


RE: The Kingfish
By AEvangel on 5/28/2010 12:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with your example is the only reason we have Big telecoms is due to Govt interference in the industry. Regulations they say that are supposed to keep us safe or supply us with said product cleanly are really meant to keep smaller companies from being able to start up and compete against the larger ones to provide a better service or cheaper.

Govt owning anything is always the worse case scenario....one of the main things that our Govt is supposed to do is protect the borders and they can't even do that and you want to give them more responsibility???


RE: The Kingfish
By theArchMichael on 5/28/2010 1:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
my example doesn't utilize government "responsibility" in the traditional sense because the government would be an owner and not an operator or even builder of said infrastructure.

What if private companies owned all the roads in the US? What if they owned YOUR street and were charging you a rate to go to and fro from your own house. Is that Ok? well this is the free market, let's double that rate..still ok? Again? This is the free market. How much can you bear? you get my point.

It's a shame that people let their ideology blind them to other possibilities that may be advantageous if done correctly.


RE: The Kingfish
By AEvangel on 5/29/2010 2:31:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's a shame that people let their ideology blind them to other possibilities that may be advantageous if done correctly.


The problem is that for the last 150 years the Govt has shown us that it is almost incapable of doing anything right. Your then asking us to suspend our mis-trust in an institution that has murdered millions of people to profit a select few. I guess I should ask you to believe in Fairies and Unicorns.


RE: The Kingfish
By clovell on 5/28/2010 12:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I had two main beefs. One of which, you addressed - that being HOW this is being done.

My larger concern is WHEN this is being done. We don't have the money for this right now, and I don't see it paying off at all.

I could be wrong, if Obama indefinitely extends the drilling moratorium, adn tensions rise between OPEC nations and the US, we could see gas spike over $5/gal and that would make EVs a bit more.... economically preferable (as incestual as it sounds, given a $10k tax credit). Point is, for this to actually save us money, Barak is going to have to screw up pretty badly.


RE: The Kingfish
By rcc on 5/28/2010 2:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
And based on history you think this is unlikely?

: )


RE: The Kingfish
By clovell on 5/28/2010 3:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't think it's unlikely - I was just trying to strike a more moderate tone. The Dow has already closed under 10K for the first time in recent memory. The next day, Obama declared a moratorium on domestic oil drilling. Slick.

I've no doubts as to the man's destructive capabilities.


Pouring money into unfinished tech
By corduroygt on 5/28/2010 11:13:27 AM , Rating: 3
I'd be OK with spending $10B, if all of it went into R&D, instead of subsidizing tech that's not ready yet. Imagine if the federal govt gave each of us $200 to buy a Nvidia Fermi instead of ATI 5xxx series because they believe it was the way to go...The difference is even the hot, power hungry fermi is more ready to be used as a primetime GPU, than an electric car is ready to be used as transportation.




RE: Pouring money into unfinished tech
By clovell on 5/28/2010 11:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
I mean - EVs are damned near there, and I'm happy to see them. But, $190k is just a lot of money that isn't needed.

Obama & Bush both have done a pretty good job of pushing CAFE standards, which have given us a much more efficient generation of ICE vehicles already. I just don't see this as our top priority.

If cutting a program like this reduces the budget by $10B - that should be a no-brainer. Money doesn't grow on trees.


By clovell on 5/28/2010 11:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
That's $10k...... =/ It's been a long week.


By knutjb on 5/28/2010 1:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd be OK with spending $10B, if all of it went into R&D, instead of subsidizing tech that's not ready yet.

We need less hands-on interference by the federal gov but with reasonable oversight. Henry Ford figured out a way to make a cheap car during a time of very expensive hand built cars. He did so without a penny of fed money. When the feds selectively dump money into markets based on political beliefs it distorts the market and stifles innovation by picking favorites.

The feds also have a responsibility to punish those who conspire to overthrow certain markets, i.e. post WWII when GM, Shell Oil, and Firestone tires dumped cheap products, buses, and devastated the Red Car lines in California. They were convicted but were fined one dollar. If that was all that they got full speed ahead on collapsing other markets. Fines only work when it is a heavy personal fine combined with jail time.

For capitalism to work it needs room to breathe but that room has been significantly reduced since 1912 based on political beliefs . We don't have reasonable capitalism anymore, we have social based central control with nameless bureaucrats picking favorites just like Europe.

All this program brings is more untenable policies growing an unsustainable debt by politicians who think your stupid and must receive guidance to make the correct choice.


More lawlessness for the sake of...nothing
By kjboughton on 5/28/2010 11:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
The most simple question to this: Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government (Congress) authorized to give people money so they can go buy a car?

And no, the answer is not the 'General Welfare' clause.




RE: More lawlessness for the sake of...nothing
By Spivonious on 5/28/2010 11:16:22 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I think a lot of people are getting fed up with the runaway spending in Washington. The next presidential election will be very interesting. I see third party candidates getting record high votes.

Where is the $10B coming from to fund this program? If the EV industry needs a $10k per vehicle credit to survive, wouldn't the correct response be to redesign EVs to be cheaper to produce? Why is the auto industry a special case?


By Kurz on 5/28/2010 11:25:30 AM , Rating: 1
The problem with socialism is certain groups get all the money from the tax payers. Other groups are left out to dry.

Thats why Price driven economies are so efficient at making sure major sects society are able to aquire wealth, Services, and products.

This command based economy is going to go down in a ball of flames.


By TSS on 5/28/2010 8:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
The part that says they can when the people allow their government to do so.

I'm across an ocean and i haven't heard anything about big protests or anything over this. I do know people are critizizing obama for his sluggish reaction to the deepwater spill. Guess that is just more important.


Nissan Leaf sold out?
By Mitch101 on 5/28/2010 10:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
Im not sure I would say the Nissan Leaf sold out I got the e-mail on it from my local dealer and it was a $99.00 refundable deposit to reserve one. Like making a deposit to visit and auto dealer just to see the car while they collect the interest on my deposit.




RE: Nissan Leaf sold out?
By Lord 666 on 5/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nissan Leaf sold out?
By clovell on 5/28/2010 11:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
Jesus christ, dude - take it easy - it's the Friday before a three day weekend...


RE: Nissan Leaf sold out?
By Mitch101 on 5/28/2010 3:59:03 PM , Rating: 1
I got it because for the last couple months I have been getting quotes on Nissan Altima's.


Insane in the membrane
By xler8r on 5/28/2010 11:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
Starts rockin to Cypress Hill




RE: Insane in the membrane
By theArchMichael on 5/28/2010 5:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nissan is deploying its 2011 Nissan Leaf EV this year in the U.S., but the vehicles have a long pre-order list and are already sold out for the year.


sorry buddy... we're all out of leaf...


Wrong State
By ArloR on 5/28/2010 10:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
Sen. Byron Dorgan Is a D From NORTH Dakota. I agree that we need to find alternative fuels, but I'm not convinced this the way to go.




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











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