backtop


Print 147 comment(s) - last by ameriman.. on Feb 20 at 4:12 PM


Tesla Model S
President Obama won't win any friends on the opposite side of the aisle with proposed EV tax credit

The fight over President Obama's energy policies are sure to get even more contentious in the coming months as the election season heats up. One particular area that is seeing an increased focus is the current $7,500 tax credit that is available for plug-in electric vehicle with battery packs equal to or greater than 16 kWh.
 
Vehicles that qualify for the tax credit include the Chevrolet Volt, Nissan Leaf, Tesla Roadster, and the Tesla Model S.
 
However, many in Washington have expressed outrage over the tax credit, stating that sales of plug-in electric vehicles have not met specified goals and that it only provides an incentive for people who are already wealthy rather than giving a break to people in lower tax brackets.
 
Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) expressed his frustration with this policy in December 2011:
 
Like many green initiatives promoted by this administration and bankrolled by the American taxpayer, the electric car is better in theory than in practice; has limited consumer demand; is heavily subsidized; and has fallen short of reaching targeted goals. Despite the fact that the federal government has no business subsidizing a product that a manufacturer could just as easily promote through rebates and other buyer incentives, the tax subsidies are largely going to the affluent few who can actually afford to buy an electric car, which costs anywhere between $40,000 and $97,000.
 
Kelly and other Republicans in Washington will now likely take serious offense to Obama's latest proposal: to up the plug-in tax credit to $10,000. The increase was tucked inside Obama's proposed $3.8 trillion USD budget.


President Obama wants to raise the EV tax credit from $7,500 to $10,000 [Source: Getty Images]
 
According to the Obama administration, increasing the tax credit would help raise the total number of plug-in vehicles in the U.S. to one million by the year 2015. So far, that goal doesn't appear to be in reach given that only 17,000 plug-in vehicles were sold in the U.S. in 2011 according to the Washington Post.
 
In a separate measure, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) has suggested that it takes too long for consumers to get back their $7,500 tax credit (it can be applied for when preparing taxes for the year in which the vehicle was purchased). Under Stabenow's bill, consumers would receive their a $7,500 (or proposed $10,000) purchase rebate within weeks of qualifying plug-in vehicle purchase.

Sources: The Washington Post, Green Car Reports



Comments     Threshold


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

This is an affront on Capitalism
By spread on 2/15/2012 5:04:16 PM , Rating: 4
How can you call this capitalism when Electric Vehicles are subsidized? If they are so good, they will sell by themselves just like gas powered vehicles with their subsidies and gasoline and oil with their subsidies and ethanol with subsidies.

This money would go further bailing out a bank or other too big to fail institutions. That is true capitalism, not giving a subsidy to these damn hippies trying to clean up the earth and everything. I like my back yard dirty and polluted thank you.




RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By bug77 on 2/15/2012 5:12:20 PM , Rating: 5
I once read an explanation why you can't combat Keynes: supporters will always counter explaining that you didn't spend enough yet.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 5:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
When he was in Congress, Obama voted for every spending expenditure that came down the line. The only problem Obama had with Bush's spending, is that it wasn't "enough".

"The Bush administration, the transition team, outgoing, never told us how bad this economy really was. And that's why it's taken my policies so long, or that's why it's going to require such drastic measures."

Sigh... Is anyone buying this crap?


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By jimbojimbo on 2/15/2012 5:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
Most people are stupid so, yes, they are buying his crap. Also, he's still black so he'll still get a huge number of votes right there.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 5:51:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, he's still black so he'll still get a huge number of votes right there.
Hey, I thought it was Achmed's turn?


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By teacherlee on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Dorkyman on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By phatboye on 2/15/2012 6:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
You ignore the fact that in most of the recent presidential elections that majority of black vote tends to go purely for the democratic nominee. So claiming that Obama got the black vote simply cause he was black is totally untrue.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By jmunjr on 2/15/2012 7:13:28 PM , Rating: 1
Except they voted for Obama vastly disproportionately compared to previous democrats...


By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 7:21:12 PM , Rating: 4
I don't see anything constructive coming from the road you guys are going down. Obama gives us enough ammunition just from his policies without playing their game and bringing up race.

It's too bad the historic failure of his Presidency will completely erase the historical significance of his ethnicity.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By phatboye on 2/15/2012 7:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly to you people who think Obama won black votes simply by being black ignore the fact that 1) Obama is not the first black person to run for the presidential seat. None of the other black candidates ever got anywhere near the support from any race (including blacks) of Americans as Obama received in 2008. 2) blacks tend to vote for the democratic candidate in all the recent presidential elections. Had Obama not won the democratic nomination for the presidential election I am sure Hillary Clinton would have received just the same percentage of the black votes as Obama 3) many people didn't think Palin was anywhere near qualified for the VP seat 4) voter turn out for the 2008 election was relatively high. 5) Most of all though I believe many people feared if Mccain won that election that he would continue many of the Bush era policies that many Americans (especially minorities) despised. The Bush era policies did more to enrage minorities to vote than his skin color.

So to claim Obama won the black vote simply because he is black is totally absurd.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 7:56:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Most of all though I believe many people feared if Mccain won that election that he would continue many of the Bush era policies that many Americans (especially minorities) despised. The Bush era policies did more to enrage minorities to vote than his skin color.


Good call on that one then. Obama has pretty much continued every damn Bush policy. Even the tax cuts for the "rich".

This is what happens when you vote for someone that you know nothing about. The media refused properly vetting Obama like McCain and every other politician. Sold us a false bill of goods with a happy change face on it.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By StevoLincolnite on 2/15/2012 9:28:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Good call on that one then. Obama has pretty much continued every damn Bush policy. Even the tax cuts for the "rich".


Seriously, your government should just cut the spending and lower the tax for everyone, get yourself's out of debt first.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 10:10:42 PM , Rating: 1
No see that's not important. What's important here is politics, not common sense.

"Cut spending" is not in the Democrat dictionary. Especially not on an election year.


By phatboye on 2/16/2012 3:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
While I am by no means an Obama fan, honestly have you seen the 2012 republican candidates?


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By aspade on 2/17/2012 10:35:02 AM , Rating: 2
Obama would be a historical footnote if not for 80-95% support among blacks in the 2008 primary.

Given a choice between a well known, fully qualified white liberal and an unknown, unqualified black liberal, they voted skin color 6:1.

If he were white he'd still be a "present" state legislator and none of you would even know his name.


By CharonPDX on 2/16/2012 3:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well, Obama won the popular vote outright - therefore ALL Democrats voted disproportionately for the Democrat compared to the past few elections.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By TSS on 2/15/2012 7:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
White people are the least racist group on the planet.

If there's anything watching black stand up comedians has taught me, it's that.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By LordSojar on 2/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By TSS on 2/17/2012 6:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, read what i said again. I said white people are the least racist group of people on the planet.

Americans are probably one of the most racist groups in the world. That includes, whites, blacks, hispanics, really anybody who carries the american nationality.

Come visit here in europe. Here in holland there's virtually no racism at all left. I even know a black guy who's not racist. As in, if you'd make a racist comment to him he won't go into it and simply say he does not appreciate your feelings and walks away. No swearing, name calling, whatever.

We used to call him bounty as a joke, black on the outside white on the inside. It was funny because none of us was actually racist, so we could joke about it without any hard feelings.

Because you got offended by my statement, i can assure you, you are already more racist then he, or i, ever where.

We are nationalist however. Damn eastern europians stealing our stuff, and the sourthern ones stealing our money. That there white or black doesn't enter into it, their bastards.


By Just Tom on 2/17/2012 7:03:53 AM , Rating: 2
No racism in Europe? Are you nuts? DO I have to bring up its colonial past? Or the Netherlands and its intergration laws? The attacks on Mosques? The burning of an Islamic school? The conflicts between the Lonsdalers and Muslim youth? Pakibashing in the UK? The appalling condition most North African immigrants live in in France? The rampant xenophobia towards Turks? The rising numbers of anti-black violent crime?

Here, this is real enjoyable reading: http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/global/civil_h...


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By sigmatau on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 6:40:07 PM , Rating: 5
I can't believe you just called me a racist. Did you see me supporting Jimbo bringing race into this?

I just love how anyone who has an issue with Obama is racist. That's a despicable tactic.

I don't even consider him "black". His mother was white. I guess that means I only 50% hate him or something? lol..come on.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By sigmatau on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 8:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dude, you mention race in every other post you make.
Please post links to the posts that Rec makes where he mentions race. And since you claim he mentions race in every other post. It should be quite easy for you to find a ton of posts in just this thread where he mentions race. I'm waiting.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Nfarce on 2/15/2012 9:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
"Racist" defined:

rac·ist [rey-sist] noun
1. a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.


Hey sigmatau: show us where RC77 has shown that his race is better than someone else's. Go ahead dude. The left has bankrupt that phrase to essentially being meaningless (IE: anyone against Obama's policies must be doing so because they are racist).

Go ahead now and put your bum where your mouth is. I'll wait.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 9:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
I've mentioned that I'm Italian? I guess that makes me racist. I'm not even "white", not sure why I would hate Obama.

But you know, a Conservative Republican MUST be a typical white racist redneck.

Because, you know, nothing like preaching tolerance while being intolerant to your political enemy. Gotta love how Liberal political correctness works.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Nfarce on 2/15/2012 9:44:35 PM , Rating: 1
And just look how they treat Black conservatives like Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, etc. etc. Liberals and the left just can't be racist.

After all, when former VP presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said "Obama wouldn't be where he was if he were white" (obvious reference to affirmative action), the left and the liberal media was silent.


By FITCamaro on 2/17/2012 11:58:09 AM , Rating: 1
Seriously. Democrats call themselves the party of tolerance while being the most intolerant people on the planet.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 9:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer, it's not just you. Don't forget Obama played the race card on Hillary, I think suggesting Bill was racist. Any opponent of Obama = racist. Even Herman Cain, remember that? Even black Republicans are racist.

What Bill should've said is he loves the ladies of all colors :P


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 9:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
"Hey, they're all pink on the inside. Know what I'm saying?"

-Bill Clinton-

Something like that? lol I can see him saying that too.

quote:
Even black Republicans are racist.


Oh man those are the biggest threat EVER to the Democrat party. Every time one tries to run for a major office, they hatchet him. Kind of ironic, huh?


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 11:30:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Every time one tries to run for a major office, they hatchet him. Kind of ironic, huh?
You can't be black and be a Republican. Hell, you can't be black and be anything other than a Democrat. I really confuse the living crap out of people and I'm not a Republican (nor a Democrat). They can't figure me out. Raised by a poor, single mom. Family is mostly Democrats/liberals (one of my uncles WAS a black panther, one of my aunts works for united farm workers). I'm supposed to be a faithfully blind liberal! But I'm not. Damn those pesky lessons my mother taught me (work hard, get educated, earn your way)! I have a lot of conservative "values" (so does my family they just won't admit it) and some liberal one's too. I'm just realistic, some things just work and others don't. That's how I roll.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 10:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
You are you're own person. Nice man :)

quote:
I'm supposed to be a faithfully blind liberal!


LOL yeah, I really don't get that. I mean, I get it but...nmv. We're approaching a topic that get's one called a "racists" heh.

Glad you could break the mold though.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Spuke on 2/16/2012 12:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're approaching a topic that get's one called a "racists" heh.
It's not racist. Most blacks vote Democrat but, interestingly, are mostly conservative (because of religious influence). The more liberal blacks tend to have post high school educations.


By Arsynic on 2/16/2012 10:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
Who are these southern "racist" politicians you speak of?


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By retrospooty on 2/15/2012 5:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
"Sigh... Is anyone buying this crap?"

Nope... I did vote for him in 08, but he wont be getting it this time. He came in talking against lobbyists, and wanting to work with the reps to get things done. He hasnt done a damn thing about lobbyists, and rather than work with the other side, he let that a$$hole Pelosi go to town and has become extremely polarizing. Totally disappointed.

Sadly, I dont see any other good options on the ballot, but I am a solid, "Not him" in Nov.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 6:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he let that a$$hole Pelosi go to town and has become extremely polarizing.


Oh god that woman....I don't even understand how Democrats can put up with her.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/15/2012 6:08:47 PM , Rating: 3
I say the same thing about Bachmann. I don't know which one is worse... they're both repugnant.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Dorkyman on 2/15/2012 6:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Which person would I like to have as a neighbor?

Which person could I count on to tell the truth?

I'd pick Bachmann in a heartbeat. Pelosi is just nuts, to the degree that I actually feel sorry for her.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By sigmatau on 2/15/2012 6:48:12 PM , Rating: 1
Neighbor? A Republican? You mean the ones that don't follow the Bible but would rather spit on you and kick you while you are down?

Truth? Really? The house speaker, a slime ball Republican, just said today:

'"We were not going to allow Democrats to continue to play games and cause a tax increase for hardworking Americans. We made a decision to bring them to the table so that the games would stop and we would get this worked out."' -Boehner

This little POS actually has the nerve to open his mouth and state (as though he is not on LSD) that his party was not the ones playing games with the payroll tax like attaching the Keystone pipeline that WILL NOT decrease our gas prices but increase our gas exports.

Nuts? What make you think Pelosi is nuts? She does look a little squirly, but looks aren't everything. She has ethics, is intelligent, and gets the job done as well as she can with the Republicans that have signed agreements with each other to reject anything Democrats try to push no matter that the Republicans don't follow what their constituents want.

You will see the fall of the Republican party this year. They have sat on their hands too long and tried to pass the blame for too long. Obama will be re-elected. Mark my words.

I will dance on the Republicans' tears like a farmer cheering a monsoon after a long drought.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By JediJeb on 2/15/2012 7:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
She has ethics,


Pelosi: "We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it "

I think if she had any ethics at all she would have held off on passing the Health Care Reform Act until every member of Congress had time to read and understand what the bill was and what it contained.

Now as far as intelligence, she sure has that which is proven by the fact she wanted to get the bill passed before anyone knew what was in it, otherwise it would have never passed.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 7:31:32 PM , Rating: 3
Ethics? It's a well known fact shes maybe the worst abuser of insider trading in all of Congress. Doubling her portfolio in only a few weeks. I'm sure that was a coincidence, riiight.

Pushing policy changes to protect personal investments? More ethical behavior

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/0...

Her absolutely inflammatory and offensive characterizations of Republicans, simply to divide the country, is very poor form and unethical for someone of her stature.

Her outright lies, claiming if the Stimulus wasn't passed "500 million Americans will lose their jobs in one month". Very ethical lol p.s. that's more jobs than people!


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 8:52:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"500 million Americans will lose their jobs in one month".
LOL! Seriously, she said that?


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 9:15:11 PM , Rating: 4
RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Spuke on 2/16/2012 12:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
Dumber than soap? LMAO!


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 9:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
Glad you brought up insider training. Left-leaning media asked her about it, I think it was 60 Minutes, and she shut him down like he was George Bush himself. How DARE he ask about her insider trading?!


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Spuke on 2/16/2012 12:17:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How DARE he ask about her insider trading?!
This this main reason I'm not a liberal. It's the do as I say, not as I do mentality. I cut those people to shreds every chance I can get. Hypocrites.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 10:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of this book I have. It's called Do As I say (not as I do). Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, by Peter Schweizer.

Speaking of Pelosi, let's me find her chapter.

One of the wealthiest members in Congress, but constantly plays class warfare against the rich.

A rabid environmentalist and conservationists, yet takes a plane everywhere or limousine.

Invested 1$million in a golf development partnership. Which then shirked it's environmental regulatory obligations. The development even displaced two endangered species: California tiger salamander, Western pond turtle. A county report in 2004 detailed that the gold course had polluted the water supply due to improperly abandoned wells, something they agreed to handle but never did. And the ponds for the turtles and salamanders had still not been built. Pelosi refuses to answer questions about CordeValle and the Liberal press won't touch her.

Holds 10+million in real estate. All high class. No urban developments. No "affordable housing" that she slams the Republicans for not caring about. She herself doesn't.

Expresses anger for manufacturing jobs leaving the country. Yet not a single stock in her portfolio, massive portfolio, is invested in an manufacturing company. Instead she has extensive holdings in tech firms that outsource labor to Asia like Cisco. Ironically none of her investments at the time the book was written had a unionized workforce either.

Beacon Education Management provides educational services to charter schools. While Pelosi publicly opposes charter schools and school vouchers, her husband is an officer of Beacon and she has $100,000 invested in the company.

The Pelosi's own a vineyard in Napa Vally worth about 25$million. They don't pick the grapes of course, they hire people to do that. They've hired several harvesting firms over the years, but they all have something in common. None of the contract with the UFW (farm-workers union). Also they've only sold their grapes to non-union wineries! And these are staunch union supporters, mind you. Until it digs into their own profits apparently.

Hotels and restaurants, same thing. They own or hold stakes in several luxurious hotels and eateries. All non union.

I could go on and on. Jesus Christ, this woman is the biggest hypocrite in Congress. And the book came out back in 2005. I'm sure she's continued her hypocrisy. What a disgusting two-faced embarrassment. How even Democrats can support her is beyond me.

With Liberals it's all about politics and lies. Not even they believe what they say. They're all stinking rich too, I don't understand why people give their hypocritical rhetoric any legitimacy at all.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Spuke on 2/16/2012 12:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Pelosi's own a vineyard in Napa Vally worth about 25$million. They don't pick the grapes of course, they hire people to do that. They've hired several harvesting firms over the years, but they all have something in common. None of the contract with the UFW (farm-workers union). Also they've only sold their grapes to non-union wineries! And these are staunch union supporters, mind you. Until it digs into their own profits apparently.
I know about this one. LOL! This all public information too. No digging needed but hardly anyone questions her about it. You always see pictures of her punk ass down in the barrio smiling at latino kids too. And a lot of them think she's looking out for them. Ha! Keep voting for her dumb asses. Oh, that's right latinos and blacks don't vote. Why the hell is she still in office and who the hell is voting for her?


By retrospooty on 2/15/2012 9:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Which person [Bachman or Pelosi] would I like to have as a neighbor?"

Seriously, if that were my choice, I would move in a heartbeat.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By sigmatau on 2/15/2012 6:33:17 PM , Rating: 3
I think you meant Boehner. Now that is one crying, whining, woman.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 8:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you meant Boehner. Now that is one crying, whining, woman.
You'd cry too if you had the tea party chained to your right testicle.


By Pneumothorax on 2/16/2012 8:59:43 AM , Rating: 1
The difference is that while Bachmann is just like a Chihuahua - all bark, no bite (in other words, she's never had much power/influence), the bitch Pelosi is a pit bull, lots of bark and bite.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By teacherlee on 2/15/2012 5:55:22 PM , Rating: 1
Good. Then you get what you get in November. You get the party who came in talking about "jobs, jobs, jobs" but have done nothing but talk about/pass legislation about gay marriage, abortion, birth control, show your papers, and other crap.


By retrospooty on 2/15/2012 6:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. Maybe I'll just not vote.

If the choices are between the socially neanderthal reps, or the neverendingspending dems, I just vote "no".


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 6:03:57 PM , Rating: 1
Kind of hard to create "jobs jobs jobs" when the President will veto any bill. Assuming the bill can even get past the Senate. Which they don't.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By retrospooty on 2/15/2012 9:57:28 PM , Rating: 1
It's not like the other side has an answer. Dont forget, the other side brought us to this point.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By arswihart on 2/16/2012 8:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
Right, we're in Obama's 4th year, 2 of which where he had absolute power over both Houses of Congress, and it's still the other side's fault.

Obama brought us the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and now 4th federal deficits of greater than 1 trillion dollars. The deficit in Bush's last term, a little over 100 billion.

Obama has made things much, much worse than what they were, and liberals point to things that he's spent all of our money on as "his" accomplishments.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By retrospooty on 2/16/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 11:06:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I am saying is he inherited a nightmare spiraling out of control.


BS. Been proven not to be the case 100000000 times now.

He inherited a recession, that's it. The Bush TARP, as we now know, worked in stabilizing the banks. There was no "out of control" situation. It was not the end of the world. Lot's of Presidents inherit rough economies. Reagan did, and he didn't spend the next 8 years blaming Carter. He fixed it.

Saying "I didn't know how bad the economy was" is an embarrassing statement for someone who was in Congress at the time, and is now President. And is an outright lie to try and explain why things aren't getting better.

quote:
I was only saying that I dont hear any solutions coming from the other side.


That only means you haven't been listening. LOTS of solutions come from the other side. And get ignored or shouted down.

Don't you get it by now? Obama doesn't WANT solutions. He even formed a bi-partisan committee to come up with solutions. When they told him their conclusions, he ignored them. Why? Because they wanted him to SPEND LESS! Something he cannot accept. And since every Republican solution has spending cuts of some type, they're all dead to him and the Democrats.

quote:
Standing up on a podium and saying "we are going to reduce the deficit" doesnt actually reduce the deficit.


When the President and Senate or committed to record deficits? No I guess it doesn't. But how is that the Republicans fault?

If the Bush administration is as bad as Republicans get, fiscally fine, I'll probably go with you on that for arguments sake. However Obama's deficit is FOUR TIMES higher!

Stop making excuses.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By retrospooty on 2/16/2012 11:32:24 AM , Rating: 1
"BS. Been proven not to be the case 100000000 times now"

BS right back at you. Stop blaming everything on the left. We have had this discussion before. The housing market was crashing hard, and it brought everything down with it. There isnt anything anyone could have done to stop it. Nothing to the contrary has been proven. I feel like you are closing your eyes to how badly things were falling in 2008. It started in 2007.

Granted, spending is out of control, and Obama doesnt seem to want to do anything to stop it. This pisses me off as much as it does you, but both sides suck here. Its not a right v left issue. Its a top v bottom issue. The top people that conrtol the reps and dems have screwed us here, not the dems.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 12:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
And the leftist media tricked you into thinking it was the end of the world. As they always did under Bush.

Under Bush, even at the end, 93% of all mortgages in America were being paid.

The housing collapse from subprime mortgages was caused, 100%, by Democratic policies decades before. The bubble was always going to burst, it was inevitable.

quote:
There isnt anything anyone could have done to stop it.


False. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive...

Republicans tried to fix it in 2005. Democrats rejected it outright. They refused to reform Frannie and Freddie, the rest is history.

Sorry Retro. I know you think you mean well, but you just aren't informed enough. Were things bad? Yes. Is that an excuse to make them worst? No.

As far as you guys and your little "both sides" deal. I always find it ironic that when Democrats are about to take a shellacking on something, that "both sides suck" mantra get's rolled out. When Republicans are in the White House, it's never "both sides". It's all terrible, all their fault.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By retrospooty on 2/16/2012 12:59:29 PM , Rating: 1
Whatever amigo. You cant get past the left v right blame game, so there isn't much else to say. I do respect your opinion and your anger.

I still leave you with this. When Obama took office, the reps has the white house for 20 of the previous 28 years and they had Congress for 14 of the previous 16 years. If everything wrong in the country is the lefts fault, the right sure isnt doing a good job with their vast majority of power in modern times dont you think?

Honestly, BOTH sides are robbing us blind and blaming the other. If you cant see past that part, and just stay on one side blaming the other, then I cant help you see any logic.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 3:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Noya on 2/15/2012 6:05:04 PM , Rating: 3
You're on controlled substances if you actually believe your vote does anything except show up as a number in the popular vote. Only two parties (one aimed at the poor and the other aimed at the rich and those who like to think they are) to choose from and a popular vote that means absolutely nothing.

It just cracks me up when Reclaimer77 and others on here and so adamant about politics when he's surely intelligent enough to see that it's all a big show to keep the population from revolting and that they're all corrupt beyond belief.

He who has the gold makes the rules...

...and the majority have a minority of the gold.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 6:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
You think this is how to get people to NOT revolt? I haven't seen this many protests in the streets since Vietnam!


By retrospooty on 2/16/2012 6:27:19 AM , Rating: 3
He has a very valid point. It's called divide and conquer, and that, we are.

There is a false line between dems and reps. They keep it really close to 50/50. When things move to one side, so does the line. They keep us distracted, arguing with each other over the small issues while they rob us blind. The corporations and super wealthy that run both parties and guide their interest win, no matter what party wins elections. They run both houses and use anger like yours reclaimer, as a primary tool.

This is why I always jump on you for blaming hte liberal side, without really taking the liberal side myself. Its not that I am a closet lib, its that you are fighting the wrong fight altogether.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Paj on 2/16/2012 7:34:17 AM , Rating: 4
The Republicans have really got a cavalcade of great candidates though haven't they?

A multimillionaire Mormon who attempts to identify with the working class while paying less than 20% tax, a man who equates being gay to being a paedophile, and a man who draws attention to his opponent's ability to speak French in an attempt to discourage people from voting for him.

The American electoral system - it would be hilarious if it wasn't so scary.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By arswihart on 2/16/2012 8:06:13 AM , Rating: 2
The candidates aren't amazing, but we need anyone but Obama. This country will become an unrecognizable socialist welfare state a la Greece and probably close to bankruptcy otherwise.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By TSS on 2/17/2012 6:26:05 AM , Rating: 2
And this is why your country is lost. You don't need "Anyone" but obama. You need the right guy for the job. If republicans and democrats can't supply one, PICK A THIRD CANDIDATE.

Right now you are saying "well obama's no good so lets replace him with somebody WORSE".

Obama promised change. He has taken bush and made it worse. Mitt romney is blatantly comming out that he's campaigning for the middle class. Incase you haven't noticed, there's very little middle class left. Mitt romney doesn't care about the "very poor or very rich". Means he doesn't care about the top 1%, or the bottom 50%

For the love of god why can't you people think? Or atleast break out from that bubble you're living in....


By arswihart on 2/16/2012 8:16:16 AM , Rating: 3
You forgot to caricature Obama: an Alinskyite Chicago thug politician who's never held a real job in his life other than being a communist street agitator.


By Arsynic on 2/16/2012 10:13:28 AM , Rating: 2
And they're running against a self-proclaimed Marxist who hasn't even run a lemonade stand and is getting on the job training as President. Obama has more baggage than any of the Republican candidates, the only difference is that the press covers for him because he's black and he's a Democrat.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Keeir on 2/16/2012 12:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A multimillionaire Mormon who attempts to identify with the working class while paying less than 20% tax


Errr... you realize that the "working" class pays ~10% in income taxes right? I guess I am not really sure what the 20% (14%) tax rate has to do with the ability to identify with the working class...


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Rukkian on 2/16/2012 5:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Which working class would those be, who do I become one? I am absolutely working class, but pay much more than 10%, and pay much more than the 13% that Romney paid.

The fact that he was a huge proponant of keeping the capital gains taxes low to help himself is absolutely what is wrong. This is not a right vs left, this is an issue with the whole system. Everybody in the country seems to only be out for themselves. What do I get, what is in it for me? Seems to be the motto of the country. We need to figure out ways to fix the entire system, and right now, neither side is right.

I am completely for cutting budgets, but that needs to come from both ends - need to cut handout programs, while also cutting tax loopholes, and getting all income taxed the same, including capital gains. If that means some will not bet their entire life savings on risky adventures, so be it. Once we have erased the deficit, and put a significant cut into the debt, then and only then should taxes be lowered.

We need to cut the short-sided pandering to the idiots robbing our futures to make some greedy bastards rich today. We need what Washington is sorely lacking - Common Sense, we need to get rid of the entire current bunch and start only electing new people until they get the hint and quite pointing fingers and fix the issues.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Keeir on 2/16/2012 5:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.ht...

To pay a 14% overall -income- tax rate on taxable income only, a single unmarried person must make a minimum of 35,000 of taxable income... which means their pay from work is a minimum of 47,500. But that's not what Romney paid! He paid ~14% of his nominal income before paying 15% to charity. To have the same 14% income tax bill of nominal income while giving 15% of your money to charity... a single person would need to be making around 75,000 minimum. As you add people, household income would just need to increase.

Or lets look at this way. A single person makes 40,000 a year. That seems "working" class to me. They would owe a maximum of 3,700 in income tax. That's less than 10% of their nominal income! Gosh!

Oh wait! I think you mean "I paid Social Security, Medicare, and State Taxes. Combined with my Federal Income taxes, they were more than 14% of my income!." Which I don't doubt for a second, but you comparing apples to oranges. Very few Americans pay 14% and greater Income Tax rate on their nominal income.


By EricMartello on 2/16/2012 8:58:40 AM , Rating: 2
If they are going to subsidize something it should be the INFRASTRUCTURE and not the vehicles themselves. Maybe more people would purchase EVs if charging stations were more ubiquitous...especially in major cities.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Samus on 2/16/2012 3:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think the only problem Obama had with Bush spending was he felt most of it wasn't "neccessary."

Whatever the hell Obama's definition of neccessary is. See "John Maynard Keynes".


By bebimbap on 2/15/2012 7:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
That is so true Keynes do say that.

quote:
This money would go further bailing out a bank or other too big to fail institutions. That is true capitalism


Actually true capitalism would allow those banks and other too big to fail institutions to fail and allow other smaller entities to take over. Just like a forest, when a large tree finally dies or falls over due to weather, animals or other events, smaller trees flourish where the dead tree now lay. Most smaller banks are more than happy to take over the accounts of a larger bank, anyone remember what happened to Wacovia?


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By DanD85 on 2/16/12, Rating: 0
By arswihart on 2/16/2012 8:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
A superbly constructed argument Dan.


By Ringold on 2/16/2012 10:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
Millions of North Koreans and Chinese in shallow graves heartily agree! Gee golly, if only we had ol' Mao to fix todays problems, nothing a well-planned purge couldn't fix no doubt.

Maybe the KGB can help advise us on the operational details of communist-era purges?


By ameriman on 2/20/2012 4:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't Keynesian.. it is Kenyasian

More take from the poor, hand to the rich Democrat irresponsible theft..

Steal from our children to flush more $ down Democrat/Obama toilets of crony payoffs/stupidity/waste/pork.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By CharonPDX on 2/15/2012 7:56:22 PM , Rating: 3
So helping a company establish a market that will increase US leadership in a burgeoning industry (without actually giving money to that company,) isn't capitalism; but giving money directly to large banks that mismanaged our economy into the toilet is?

Funny definitions of capitalism...

Yes, oil receives HUGE tax breaks. The US has the lowest gas prices in the world among countries whose economies aren't primarily derived from oil (aka: The Middle East.) How much would gas in the US be if we DIDN'T subsidize the oil companies? (Oh, yeah, we then collect taxes on the final product, but that is paid on a direct basis by the consumer, not the oil companies. Just like how sales taxes hit the consumers, not the producers.)


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 8:30:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
but giving money directly to large banks that mismanaged our economy into the toilet is?


Friend, TARP was wrong. The Government never should have done it.

BUT

The Government "handed" out 245 Billion in the form of Loans, which for the most part were repaid

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487042...

The end cost to the Government was fairly minor.

quote:
The US has the lowest gas prices in the world among countries whose economies aren't primarily derived from oil


Primarily due to the difference in at the pump taxes. It might surprise you to learn the US oil companies pay HIGHER tax rates than many European countries would require. GASP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_...

Sure Oil Companies qualify for lots of write-offs written into the US tax code to help diverse corporations. But the rate starts at 33%+! This is higher than ANY country in Europe. And this doesn't include state taxes! I've see figures that suggest the Oil Companies pay between 20-30% tax rates (after state). This compares favorably with the most they would need to pay in European countries.

You do realize that Corporations can not pay taxes right? Taxes are money. Money stands for people's labor. A Corporation can do no labor. Any and all "taxes" collected from a corporation are taken from the customers, workers, or investors. Since the investors expect a return rate -after- taxes, most corporate income "taxes" are taken from the customers and workers. I maintain the US would be far better off with a 0 percent corporate income tax rate and taxing capital gains and dividend income correctly.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 8:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I maintain the US would be far better off with a 0 percent corporate income tax rate and taxing capital gains and dividend income correctly.
Interesting.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 9:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Interesting.


If you want the highest economic growth rate, the best capital gains tax rate is zero.

-Allan Greenspan-


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Keeir on 2/16/2012 10:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
That's true of any tax rate though...

Since capital gains tax only affects the profit made from transaction of financial items, I have never been entirely sold on the argument of its extremely low rate, especially when you can shield capital gains in 401(k) type plans. The only good argument has been that corporates taxes...

If investing is a "profession" that requires thought and planning, lets treat income from investing the same as any other income from professional work.

If investing is a "game" like gambling, lets treat income from investing the same as any other gambling income.

Either way leads to the same conclusion I think.

The clearest and most simple tax program that effectively raises the income required to support the needed functions of government will leads to the highest stable economic growth rate.

-Keeir


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2012 11:12:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's true of any tax rate though...


Exactly. We all know this to be true. The only ones who think higher taxes cause economic growth are the Democrats.

Funny though. The topic was capital gains taxes, so I quoted Greenspan on them. And you still take a tone with me like I've done something wrong by not addressing ALL taxes, when that wasn't the focus of the discussion.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Keeir on 2/16/2012 11:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you still take a tone with me like I've done something wrong by not addressing ALL taxes, when that wasn't the focus of the discussion.


Errr... I think you're being overly sensitive. I had 13 lines in that post, only 1 of which mentioned anything besides discussing Capital Gain tax...

Since I brought it up, I am pretty sure I was discussing the interaction of Corporate Tax Rate, Capital Gains Tax Rate, Dividend Tax Rate, and Income Tax Rates. Is there some special reason Capital Gains ought to be zero? I mean more so than the others? Does Alan Greenspan consider Capital Gains tax to be especially harmful? Do you consider Capital Gains tax to be especially harmful? What was the point of the quotation?


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Shadowmage on 2/15/2012 8:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
You do know what gasoline is fairly heavily subsidized by the US government, correct?


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2012 9:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
The subsidies make up about 3 cents at the pump. The taxes on gas is several times greater. There's no factual claim that petroleum subsidies cost us money.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Shadowmage on 2/16/2012 11:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, more than 50 cents a gallon.

http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_...

Assuming 375mil gallons consumed in the US per day:

(74000000000)/(375000000*365) = .54


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Keeir on 2/16/2012 12:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
A few things

I doubt the "Environmental Law Institute" can really claim a 100% neutral stance. So I'd like to be able to see how they calculated their numbers.

But here are a few "issues" with that graphic and your conclusions

#1. Fossil Fuels DNE Gasoline. Fossil Fuels = Gasoline, Diesel, Heating Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, etc, etc. Your division is pretty small.

#2. I don't know where Nuclear is added? Do you?

#3. The Foreign Tax Credit is given to ever company equally and is not specifically designed for oil production!
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0,,id=183263...

That's wrong headed and makes me doubt the rest of the assertions.

#4. Its over a 6 year period !

Here is a better way to calculate Fossil Fuel Subsidies. And its STILL distorted.

I'll even grant you the vastly inflated figure of 74 Billion.

74 Billion Dollars / 6 years = 12.3 Billion per year

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.resource....

Seems like over 1 year the US uses 317.1 billion gallons of oil.

12.3/317.1 = 3.8 cents per gallon of oil.

Or lets consider it this way

In Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas, the US yearly uses ~20 Trillion kWh of Fossil Fuels.

Thats means we are talking about 0.0615 cents per kWh.

A typical gallon of gasoline contains ~34 kWh of Engery and required another ~10 kWh of Fossil Fuel Energy to Refine and Transport.

Therefore, a typical gallon of gasoline has around 2.7 cents per gallon "subsidy" of which less than 1 cent is "special" subsidies only given to Fossil Fuel companies.

Try again.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Keeir on 2/16/2012 12:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats means we are talking about 0.0615 cents per kWh.


I want to repeat that this is per kWh of the base material. Electricity would be subsidies around .18 cents per kWh. Which considering that many "green" alternatives are subsidized up to 5-6 cents per kWh (and are still more expensive) shows the tremendous gap in the subsidy levels.


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Ringold on 2/16/2012 10:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
That post was glorious, Keeir. Thank you.

People that hear attacks on oil companies suggesting they dont pay much in taxes and receive massive "subsidies" should, one would think, simply check their easily-accessible financial reports; CNBC, Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg, etc., all make it a 5 second affair to find out their effective tax rates. Of course, that's a broad overview, but the rates are high enough that it should cause most people to dismiss the claims as political slander, but.. some folks don't think critically. You, however, do, even if we disagree at times. :P


RE: This is an affront on Capitalism
By Keeir on 2/17/2012 4:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
It is fun when the zealot gives you the sword.

I find corporate tax especially funny. People WANT to be taxed regressively! Since Corporate Income taxes primarly come from the customers and workers, they hit lower and middle classes heavier than richer folks.

Anyway, the point of this post is I made a mistake. I say 6 years and not 7 ELI says the data is from...

Thus, I might say the following

"According to the Enivronmental Law Institute, counting all subsidies and tax breaks regardless of intent, a gallon of gasoline had a reduced cost of approx 2.3-2.5 cents from 2002-2008. At the same time, Federal Income Tax and Gasoline tax totaled a minimum of 21 cents per gallon. State Taxes, Payroll Taxes, Fees, etc are not included in this 21 cents per gallon minimum tax. Real tax rates per gallon were significantly higher."

(One could and probably should argue that the "Foriegn Tax Credit" is not a subsidy or even really a credit at all. And ELI clearly states that the source of most of the "subsidy" amount)


By djdjohnson on 2/16/2012 12:34:32 AM , Rating: 2
In the light of roughly 50 cents per gallon in state and federal taxes, any subsidies are a joke.


By Dan Banana on 2/16/2012 6:31:06 AM , Rating: 3
Who is calling it capitalism? What is often called "capitalism" nowadays is simply socialism for corporations. This is far better than that, it's using public resources to actually do something to the citizen's benefit instead of doing something to our detriment like subsidizing the incredibly destructive oil companies.


Wait a second....
By mjdaly on 2/15/2012 5:06:59 PM , Rating: 4
I was under the impression that President Obama wanted to increase the taxes of the wealthy. It is clear that not only can the majority of people in this country not afford this under normal circumstances, but they don't pay enough taxes to be able to use the credit to begin with. Therefore, this must be a tax break only for those wealthy enough to be able to afford a low end luxury car.

Or, even better, since his administration completely disregarded normal bankruptcy laws to allow his friends in the UAW to take ownership of a large amount of GM, perhaps he would like to increase their profits at the expense of the taxpayer?




RE: Wait a second....
By FastEddieLB on 2/15/2012 5:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well done, you've figured it out! :)


RE: Wait a second....
By danjw1 on 2/15/2012 6:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, if you make ~$70,000 you are paying around 10k in taxes. Depending on where you live that can be a lot or not much.


RE: Wait a second....
By Solandri on 2/15/2012 7:08:51 PM , Rating: 4
Following up on the last time this came up: You can only take full advantage of the $7,500 tax credit if you owe $7,500 or more in Federal income taxes. To owe that much in taxes, the minimum income you must make is:

$5800 standard deduction (0% tax)
Next $8,500 (10% tax = $850)
Next $26,000 (15% tax = $3,900)
Next $11,000 (25% tax = $2,750)
Total $51,300 ($7,500 tax)

To fully take advantage of the $10,000 tax credit, it becomes:

$5800 standard deduction (0% tax)
Next $8,500 (10% tax = $850)
Next $26,000 (15% tax = $3,900)
Next $21,000 (25% tax = $5,250)
Total $61,300 ($10,000 tax)

That's how much you have to make if you're single or married filing separately, and not itemizing. If you're married filing jointly or head of household, or itemizing, the income thresholds to take full advantage of the tax credit are even higher. If you make less than these amounts, your income taxes will not exceed $7,500 or $10,000 and you cannot take full advantage of the credit.


RE: Wait a second....
By bebimbap on 2/15/2012 7:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah most people don't realize that this is a NON-refundable tax credit. and true that $61k is for a single person with no dependents. A married couple with 2 kids would have to earn more than 150k for the year they bought the car. better get that 2nd job! Though that isn't THAT much in today's economy, thank you inflation, it is still 6 figures. What is that upper middle class or lower upper class? Even the system has so much gradient that it's hard to judge.

Though the affluent always were the first to get new tech, as long as it's on the market they will buy it, with or without a non refundable tax credit. Ipad anyone?


RE: Wait a second....
By Spuke on 2/15/2012 10:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A married couple with 2 kids would have to earn more than 150k for the year they bought the car. better get that 2nd job!
Don't need a second job all you need is two working professionals and that income is easily attained.


RE: Wait a second....
By bobsmith1492 on 2/16/2012 8:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
If you're in a wealthy area of the country, maybe!

My wife and I are barely breaking 6 figures as an electrical engineer and financial planner for a top-ten financial company. We get screwed over here in Michigan. Sure, our house is cheaper, but that's the ONLY thing. Cars, electronics, food, everything else costs just the same as any wealthy area of the country.

Oh, and no way would we every pay half our yearly gross on a car.


RE: Wait a second....
By Keeir on 2/16/2012 10:50:00 AM , Rating: 2
Hey...

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#17-0000

Seems like the national average for electrical engineer is ~88,000.

Financial Analysts is ~86,000 and Finance in general is ~68,000

So nation wide average says that the average electrical engineer and financial planner is making between 156,000 to 174,000. Seems like if you ever decide to move from Michigan, you have a good chance of passing that 150,000 miles mark.

quote:
Sure, our house is cheaper, but that's the ONLY thing. Cars, electronics, food, everything else costs just the same as any wealthy area of the country.


I've lived in many different parts of the US. I can say that -many- things change in price. Sometimes its little things like an extra 10 cents for this item or an extra 25 cents per hour for parking. Other times its 2x or 3x for the same "service" industry item or fees that come from nowhere. I think you'd be shocked at the price of a lot of items if you were to just pick up and move to California.


RE: Wait a second....
By Ringold on 2/16/2012 10:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you'd be shocked at the price of a lot of items if you were to just pick up and move to California.


Given that his main problem is living in one of the most hostile to business states in the nation (outside of favored union-affiliated firms), if I were him I'd try a business-friendly state like Texas for a change!

California is nice to visit, though. Briefly. And, be careful not to pull off the highway on the wrong exit if you value your life in cities like LA.


RE: Wait a second....
By bobsmith1492 on 2/17/2012 11:09:41 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, I rode my bike through LA and didn't feel I needed to avoid any areas.

Michigan does have some bad business laws, many pushed through by the unions. For example, capital equipment gets re-taxed every year just for owning it. Unions didn't want robotics taking over their manual jobs, so they got the law passed. It ends up limiting use of expensive equipment, keeping high-tech industry away.


RE: Wait a second....
By Spuke on 2/16/2012 3:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, and no way would we every pay half our yearly gross on a car.
I agree. We wouldn't either!


We'd have Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars now....
By FastEddieLB on 2/15/2012 5:02:05 PM , Rating: 3
...if Obama hadn't killed the program.




RE: We'd have Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars now....
By Kurz on 2/15/2012 6:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
>.> Hydrogen fuel cells are not feasible.


RE: We'd have Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars now....
By bebimbap on 2/15/2012 7:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
>.> Hydrogen fuel cells are not feasible.


yet.

Electric light bulbs were not feasible at one point. It's really a matter of how close the chinese are to making the tech cheap.


RE: We'd have Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars now....
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 7:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hydrogen fuel cells are not feasible.


For hydrogen fuel cells to be "feasible" lots of things need to go right.

One thing very troubling to me is the fuel path. Hydrogen is primarily a carrier. Energy must be consumed to produce the hydrogen in the first place. Hydrogen from Natural Gas or Electricity is not efficient with current fuel cells in comparison to just using the Natural Gas or Electricity. Either fuel cells need to get significantly more efficient, or a new method of generating hydrogen needs to be found.

That's besides the enormous cost of having a fuel stack in addition to the multiple kWh battery required.... but I don't doubt that eventually the cost would come down... but even if it did, I think the fuel would still be relatively expensive compared to alternatives.


RE: We'd have Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars now....
By TSS on 2/17/2012 6:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
There have already been hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road, both here in europe and test vehicles of numerous companies. It's not that far off.

Thing is though, hydrogen fuel cells are relatively newly developped. Compared to battery cars which have existed for longer then ICE cars. All that time, they haven't been more viable then gas. And still are not.

While hydrogen might not be viable either, the technology has much more potential to advance faster. I remember reading on dailytech about a new hydrogen storage method which doubled the amount you could store in the same space. Looked like a honey comb. Good luck finding a new battery type that doesn't use even more rare metals while delivering twice the capacity.

The only problems with hydrogen is you'd have to modify the transport fleet as it's alot more volitile then gas (but i think it can be done at a reasonable cost even today), and the way hydrogen is generated.

Currently the main source it comes from is as a waste product from natural gas boring. Yes, that involves Fracking.

The only other alternative is hydrolysis which costs way way more electricity then you generate now. Nuclear power plants would do the trick but we all know how likely those would be built.

The problem isn't how to get a car to run on hydrogen. The problem is how do you get a nation to drive on hydrogen. Currently, it can't be done. But it certainly cannot be done with elecriticy, either (Your grid can't nearly handle the extra power draw. It might even cost a trillion total to upgrade that to spec).


By Keeir on 2/19/2012 4:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hello TSS.

You sound kind of like you've been sold on Hydrogen without examining the particulars.

Your post is heavy on concept and fairly light on numbers.

Lets consider the source as Natural Gas.

We can either
A. Turn it into Electricity and Charge some batteries
or
B. Turn it into Hydrogen and Power a Hydrogen Fuel Cell

In path A.
1 kWh of Natural Gas turns into ~.5 kWh of Electricity which is around .45 kWh when it gets to you house. That is enough to power an electric car currently on the market today ~1.3 miles.

In path B.
1 kWh of Natural Gas turns into 0.8 kWh of Hydrogen. Which when it gets to your car tank is roughly 0.60 kWh. The best fuel automotive fuel cells today are roughly 28% efficient over driving cycles or .168 kWh (to the motor) which is good for 0.84 miles. Oh, and the best automotive fuel cells have a base cost of 100,000 or more.

I guess that's my problem. Something needs to get much more efficient. Otherwise Hydrogen will always be significantly more expensive fuel than electricity. More expensive to buy and more expensive to use doesn't sound like a winner to me.

Also, keep in mind that a HFC car is really just a Serial Hybrid with a very expensive range extender. The question in my mind is when will it be practical to swap the very cheap 4 cylinder gasoline engine in the Volt for a very expensive custom Fuel Cell Stack which requires a high pressure storage system (or something not yet invented) and a new distribution network using technology not yet invented?


WTF
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 5:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
Only two things that together could make me support this measure

1. Remove cars whoose base MSRP is above 50,000
2. Reduce the total from 1 manfacturer from 200,000 to 150,000 (IE, isocost)

Without -both- of these measures, its just more political grandstanding from Obama rather than an attempt to pass a piece of compromise legislation (you know, what he promised again and again during his campaign).




RE: WTF
By Noya on 2/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: WTF
By teacherlee on 2/15/2012 5:59:41 PM , Rating: 1
They don't want to hear that. Some of these same @ssholes arguing the "destruction" of capitalism don't EVER argue about where the REAL money is being wasted. That's simply because they've bought into the "our side/their side" crap. They'd rather talk about the drop in the bucket this subsidy represents but never talk about how many millions we spend to protect private oil companies every day. If you're true capitalist, you'd be bitching about that too, but they never will because they're phonies.


RE: WTF
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 7:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
There are the following manufacturers of cars

Toyota, GM, Nissan, VW, Ford, Chrysler, Tesla, Honda, Mazda, Subaru, and Mitsubishi

The tax credit is for 200,000 cars per manufacturers up to 7,500 per credit.

1.5 Billion credit per manufacture seems pretty steep to me. Seems like we could be looking at 15-20 Billion. Some proposals on the table (7,500-->10,000) and (200,000-->500,000) could raise that to 50+ Billion (potentially).

Oh and this ignores the subsidies for chargers, utilities, manufacturing loans, etc, etc.

Sorry, to call subsidies for EVs a "drop in the bucket" is ignoring the millions to billions already spent and the multi-billions enacted through legislation.


RE: WTF
By Ringold on 2/15/2012 9:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They'd rather talk about the drop in the bucket this subsidy represents but never talk about how many millions we spend to protect private oil companies every day.


There's different elements to both parties. I for one would stick it to the prison industry by decriminalizing marijuana and implementing tobacco or alcohol level taxes on it. That'd vastly reduce the need for prisons.

As for everything else, idk, talk to any libertarian. They don't like waste, regardless of where it occurs. Certain things get brought up more then others only because the other party champions it.


RE: WTF
By JediJeb on 2/15/2012 7:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
I make about $48k per year and that ends up with me paying about $6k in taxes, so I would not even benefit from the tax break since I pay less than $7500 in taxes. (I currently come out better taking the standard deduction versus itemizing). In my area I would be considered at or above the "common" level salary wise. So how would this car help the "common" people save money on gas when most of us can't afford it.


RE: WTF
By Dan Banana on 2/16/2012 6:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
It's a drop in the bucket compared to military expenditures and will be far more efficient at easing oil supply concerns. The amount we spend now on aircraft carriers and other incredibly expensive socialistic military means to keep the flow of oil going makes throwing a few shekels towards financing electric cars seem fantastically miniscule.


RE: WTF
By Keeir on 2/16/2012 10:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
Friend,

Explain the military might that is used to ensure Canada can give us it's oil?

How about Mexico?

And Angola?

Hmmm.

Please provide some analysis based on real traceable facts that suggests Military Expenditures for Oil are 100 times greater than the 20-50 Billion Obama/Others would like to use to subsidy electric cars. Then I will agree its a "drop in the bucket"


Volt prices
By jimbojimbo on 2/15/2012 5:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
Does this mean Chevy is going to raise the price of the Volt by another $2500? Hell the subsidy takes care of it so who cares, right? I mean, the tax payers will take care of it.




RE: Volt prices
By carigis on 2/15/2012 5:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
that is exactly what will happen.


RE: Volt prices
By laweijfmvo on 2/16/2012 9:53:18 AM , Rating: 2
trivial, right? it's astonishing no one understands this.


Subsidize nothing.
By jmunjr on 2/15/2012 7:21:05 PM , Rating: 1
Subsidizing simply is not a role of government. All it does it artificially affect the market, meaning prices. They do it with college education, they do it with agriculture, they do it everywhere.

The nerve of these uber-liberals to think there isn't enough government. That's insanely insulting and ridiculous. Our government is massively larger than it was 20 years ago, and 20 years before that, etc etc. All this has done is cause us to fail as a nation. Time to go back economically to the age when there was less government with very limited regulation and ZERO subsidies. No freebies.




RE: Subsidize nothing.
By Dan Banana on 2/16/2012 6:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
It's the "conservative" Republicans that are the true big spenders. If you have any doubt peruse the article "The awful truth about Republicans" over at the Von Mises Institute website.


RE: Subsidize nothing.
By Boingo Twang on 2/20/2012 11:09:10 AM , Rating: 2
This sentiment is obviously absurd. Are you for all roads to be privately owned toll roads and privately owned air traffic control? If so, who regulates them? Will that be private too? Juvenile insanity.


Who let all the right wing maniacs in?
By Dan Banana on 2/18/2012 11:42:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm new to DT, is it always like a small version of Fox News?

As far as subsidation goes, are any of you "free market" zealots willing to admit that automobiles in general are massively subsidized? Gas taxes and other revenues do not come close to paying for auto infrastructure or the health and environmental costs associalted with the cars.




By DockScience on 2/18/2012 11:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Ah the world is shifting as more rubes figure it out.

You are surrounded by conservatives and libertarians.
Get used to it.


thinking small
By DockScience on 2/18/2012 11:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
$10,000??? That's for pikers.

Let's subsidize the purchase at $200,000. Everyone who buys a $100,000 Fisker or Tesla can get $200,000 and pocket the extra $100,000.

Overnight we can eliminate petroleum AND make EVERYONE rich!

How about it Obama?




RE: thinking small
By Boingo Twang on 2/20/2012 11:06:51 AM , Rating: 2
Your ideas are obviously ludicrous but the electric car subsidy probably pays off hugely in the long term by virtue of less environmental devastation both from less oil exploration and extraction and in less greenhouse gas emissions. IF we were to do an HONEST accounting of all the true costs of petrol powered gas hogs and the true level to which they are subsidized now by tax dollars I think we would see the amount discussed for subsidizing electric cars is a mere pittance.

Make no mistake, when we talk about greenhouse gas emissions we're talking mainly about the exhaust of internal combustion engines and most of those emissions are from privately owned cars. Electric cars are hugely more efficient also, so even if they were powered by coal power plants the emissions compared to petrol powered cars is vastly reduced.


Hell, just give 'em away!
By bigdawg1988 on 2/15/2012 4:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
Brother Obama, enough with the EV crap! Wouldn't putting more money into EV research at the university level be better?




Bama should pay out of HIS pocket
By Beenthere on 2/15/2012 5:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm already opposed to subsidizing impractical EV's so I think Bama should pay all of these subsidies out of his own pocket if he thinks EVs are viable.




gee
By TSS on 2/15/2012 7:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
The president up for re-election giving out more money in an election year.

In other news, the sun appears to be hot.

More at 11.




um
By adiposity on 2/15/2012 8:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
Make it $50,000 and we have a deal.




COST!!!
By tanjali on 2/15/2012 11:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
Let’s say you sell 1 million EV's until 2015 $10000 incentive per car that’s $10 billion. How much is a month or two of war in Iraq again?, probably more than that not mentioning Banks bailouts, I repeat BANKS BAILOUTS. I cease my case!




Government at its best
By djdjohnson on 2/16/2012 12:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
(1) Give money to the people who buy a vehicle.
(2) Don't collect any money to help maintain the roads and infrastructure it will drive on (no gas = no fuel tax).

Brilliant.

And we wonder why the government has so much debt. Propping up every program under the sun that can't sustain itself.




By FreakyD on 2/16/2012 1:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
Come on... as if helping someone pay for a $40k vehicle with everyone's tax dollars isn't enough, now they want to give people even more money to buy a car in the luxury car price range? I'm sorry, but this idiocy has to stop. If you want a "green" car, there are plenty that get nearly 40mpg. I'm sorry Obama, but I refuse to buy into this scheme. The government is already too far in debt with spending money that it doesn't have.
If the government wants to make an impact on "greener" methods of transportation, then they can provide people tax credits for taking public transportation.




By Gunbuster on 2/16/2012 8:49:59 AM , Rating: 2
The break even between a Chevy Volt and its sister car the Cruze ECO is something like 45 years. And that is counting the existing tax redistribution.

It makes no GD sense.




a DOA budget as a campaign tool
By Chaser on 2/16/2012 9:10:37 AM , Rating: 2
This is just another Campaigner in Chief empty promise that will be debate podium and mainstream news spin defense.

His cohorts in The Senate of course won't allow a vote on it since the actual truth would harm their parties reelection prospects. So their preferred budget negotiating tool is "shut down the government" threats. But who cares right? When 60% of people and growing are focused mostly on next month's "benefits" check.




well
By snarfbot on 2/16/2012 2:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
it bears mentioning that ge is buying 15000 plug ins.

http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Channel/leasing/Ar...

37.5 million saved on top of an already substantial write off.

throw a few million lobbyist dollars around and still make a profit.

business as usual?




"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki