Print 73 comment(s) - last by fleabag.. on Jun 28 at 9:32 AM

Chevy Volt

Nissan Leaf
Congress is also considering more tax credits for EVs and hybrids over vocal voices for and against such measures

In the wake of what some are calling the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, many Americans are looking at energy alternatives to fossil fuels -- nuclear power, solar, wind, and geothermal -- with new eyes.  A critical part of that equation is developing vehicles that can tap those energy sources.  With the first EVs from the world's major auto companies set to launch later this year, the pressure -- and excitement -- is on for this new market.

One critical question is how to implement an EV friendly infrastructure.  Part of the charm of the gas or diesel engine is that you can fill up your tank virtually anywhere in the country within minutes.  Faster chargers could do almost that for EVs -- charging them within 15-30 minutes.  However, it will take a massive investment to deploy these chargers across the nation.

The Obama administration is pushing legislation in the Senate that would invest taxpayer money to create EV chargers and other infrastructure in 15 key areas, much like the government's investment in rail a century and a half ago.  Energy Department Assistant Secretary David Sandalow told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee states, "Starting with a smaller number (of communities) would allow us to focus resources and build a team of experts that can support a more widespread rollout.  We need to invest in 21st-century technologies."

The bill would come at a cost of $10B USD to taxpayers – many say that's a small cost, though.  Sandalow states, "The direction of the bill is a good one.  We think this moves in a very positive direction."

That direction would be towards President Obama's goal of having 1 million electric vehicles on America's streets by 2015.  The bill in the Senate, authored by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and two others, would put the $10B USD towards giving $250M USD to up to 15 communities.  A House version of the bill comes in at $6.6B USD and would give $800M USD to five "deployment communities" to put 700,000 EVs on the streets.  Both bills have been criticized for including two few communities, which critics say could slow adoption.

A separate bill is even more controversial.  The bill would give tax credits or direct government-funded rebates to buyers of efficient vehicles like hybrids or electric vehicles, while fining those who buy less fuel efficient vehicles like truck and large SUVs.  The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing Detroit's Big Three carmakers, Toyota Motor Corp. and seven other automakers, opposes the measure.  

Kathryn Clay, the group's research director, states, "We believe the legislation should allow manufacturers, fuel providers and communities the flexibility to invest in multiple electric drive pathways, including fuel cell electric vehicle and related hydrogen infrastructure.  We have significant concerns about an approach that would limit investments to a handful of communities, particularly at such an early stage of electric vehicle deployment. This creates a small number of communities that would 'win' and receive significant federal dollars while the rest of country loses out."

Recent surveys indicate growing interest in electric vehicles, though.  And Nissan's initial production run of 14,000 2011 Nissan Leaf EVs has already been sold out via pre-orders.  In total, 20,000+ pre-orders have been placed.  The launch of the 2011 Chevy Volt by General Motors is anticipated to draw similar excitement later this year.

Still the movement has some informed skeptics.  Jan Kreider, an engineering professor and the founder of the University of Colorado's Joint Center for Energy Management, states, "There are inherent chemical limits to what a battery can do."

Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a think tank, adds, "All-electric cars are the next big thing, and they always will be."

With vocal voices on both sides, the ball is now in Congress's court to find a consensus between the House and Senate on what, if any EV-related measures are best for Americans, and how to be encourage the new industry.

Comments     Threshold

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

not such a new idea
By dgingeri on 6/23/2010 4:37:17 PM , Rating: 3
we need to take all this oil drilling technology and use it to drill tunnels deep under Yellowstone (around it, not in it, so the park stays pretty) and pump water down into them to generate steam from the heat of the caldera, then use that steam to generate electricity. It would generate huge amounts of electricity for fairly cheap, and keep the supervolcano from erupting, destroying the country. (Putting the heat pipes down into the middle of the caldera would probably accelerate the process, but cooling it from the sides should reduce the chance of eruption.)

I'm not a global warming enthusiast, but I would prefer to avoid giving our money to a bunch of guys dead set on annihilating us.

RE: not such a new idea
By billebersohl on 6/23/2010 4:49:08 PM , Rating: 5
How quickly do you think it would take environmentalists to block putting up huge power lines going through the park?

Sorry, but the enviro-wackos will oppose everything.

RE: not such a new idea
By ClownPuncher on 6/23/2010 5:00:23 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not an environmentalist and I oppose putting huge powerlines throughout Yellowstone. There is a reason National Parks exist, and eploiting them for resources is the opposite of that reason.

RE: not such a new idea
By ebakke on 6/23/2010 6:03:58 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed. Wholeheartedly. And there's absolutely no reason to destroy the park when you could simply build a nuclear power plant instead.

RE: not such a new idea
By dgingeri on 6/23/2010 6:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
who said there would be powerlines through the park? I didn't. putting that in the middle of the caldera would be a bad thing. pulling the heat off of the sides would be good. powerplants going all the way around the park, not in it.

They could also be fairly small and unobtrusive, because most of it would be underground in the form of a kind of giant heat pipe. Trees could be planted all around it and it would never be seen.

RE: not such a new idea
By asdf23fvas324rf on 6/24/2010 1:54:10 AM , Rating: 2
unfortunately theres no way to do that without destroying the park. the tunnels to pump water into the thing would be have to be placed by digging miles of trench throughout the park, in the process cutting down trees, filling in rivers and streams and killing and displacing thousands of animals. not to mention thep ower lines, utility boxes, service tunnels, etc would all have to be built on site to accommodate the entire operation as well.

and by the way, do you even have any idea how big yellowstone is? youd never be able to pull enough heat to generate enough electricity through hundreds of miles of pipes. the steam would have cooled drastically by the time it would get anywhere.

its a nice effort, but its not physically possible with no damage to the park or the environment.

RE: not such a new idea
By JediJeb on 6/24/2010 11:07:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think he is talking about angle drilling a mile or more deep from the border of the park in towards the center. There would be no need to dig trenches through the park. Also with the bore holes that deep, and with the steam being super heated, there would be plenty of heat left when it comes to the surface. These types of geothermal plants already exist, he is just thinking of putting them in a very volcanically active place to make the most of the available heat. I think it would possibly work, just need to iron out the details.

RE: not such a new idea
By zombiexl on 6/24/2010 10:39:26 AM , Rating: 3
I could argue that national parks exist because the federal government violated the states rights and seized land not belonging to them. Since this wasn't the point of your post I wont argue that as history speaks for itself.

I doubt anyone wants to see massive power lines through any park. However, the idea of harnessing the power of the caldera, and potentially keeping it from erupting is an intriguing thought.

RE: not such a new idea
By ClownPuncher on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: not such a new idea
By guacamojo on 6/23/2010 5:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, we'd have cheap power, but then what would happen to "Old Faithful?"

RE: not such a new idea
By dgingeri on 6/23/2010 6:15:31 PM , Rating: 2
it would cool down and eventually stop spouting, in about 100,000 years.

There is enough energy in that caldera, in the form of molten rock, to serve the power needs of this country at the current 15% growth rate for the next 250,000 years. It also happens to be a direct molten "tap" directly to the mantle, unlike most volcanoes that are simply a bubble of molten rock surrounded by solid rock. So, it would take a very, very long time to cool it down.

The downside would be that as it cools, we'd have to redrill new holes closer to the center of the caldera about every 250 years or so.

RE: not such a new idea
By spread on 6/24/2010 12:00:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure we can do a gas to electric conversion on it.

RE: not such a new idea
By fleabag on 6/28/2010 9:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with this idea. As for the environmentalists, just tell them that to prevent yellowstone from erupting, we need to take the energy out of it because a volcanic eruption of yellowstone would be devastating. Using yellowstone to generate electricity would be a way to "relieve" the pressure of this huge volcano.

Where's the Electricity Come From?
By billebersohl on 6/23/2010 4:14:21 PM , Rating: 5
I just ran some rough numbers with the following assumptions: an EV will need 12.7kwh to go 100km (62 miles), estimate 10K miles/year. To reach Obama's goal of 1 million EVs by 2015 we'd need the following number of new power plants: 2 nuclear, 5-10 coal, *or* 25 natural gas.

You know he is not going to approve the nuclear or coal plants, and the chances of getting 25 natural gas plants approved and built by then is slim.

So, how's he plan on providing all these EVs with power? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

RE: Where's the Electricity Come From?
By Jeffk464 on 6/23/2010 8:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
He has already approved two nuclear projects.

By sigmatau on 6/24/2010 1:10:05 AM , Rating: 2
At least 2.

By Yawgm0th on 6/24/2010 10:40:13 AM , Rating: 3
You know he is not going to approve the nuclear
How do you get uprated by being so wrong? Obama has called for new nuclear plants and has approved multiple projects. Stereotyping traditionally Democratic or "liberal" positions and applying them to a single politician when they simply don't apply is ignorant.

As has been stated numerous times, most EVs won't be charging during the day and instead will use power at night when it's cheaper and more readily available. We won't need that many new plants, if any at all, especially given how spread out the relatively low purchase volumes of EVs will be. Maybe CA will have some problems, but CA has energy problems regardless of EVs.

By Nutzo on 6/24/2010 11:00:40 AM , Rating: 2
1 Million EV's, subsidized by the taxpayer at p to $7,500 each will cost how much ?

1 million * $7,500 = $7.5 Billion more added to the national dept.

By tallcool1 on 6/24/2010 1:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
we'd need the following number of new power plants: 2 nuclear, 5-10 coal, *or* 25 natural gas.

What are you basing these numbers on?
You can have varying sizes of nuclear, coal and natural gas plants.
In fact, you can have natural gas fired turbines running through HRSGs with thier steam output to a steam turbine (combined cycle plant) in varying configurations say a 2 on 1, or even 3 on 1. These configurations typically can generate between 500-900MW. Coal plants also very in size from 50MW up to over 3000MW, depending on configuration as well.

Oh for heaven's sake...
By quiksilvr on 6/23/2010 3:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
If you're so worried about the environment, just stick this on the back of trucks and leave people alone:

RE: Oh for heaven's sake...
By bupkus on 6/23/2010 4:11:33 PM , Rating: 4
If you're so worried about the environment

Actually, I'm expecting an environmental shitstorm but just maybe not in my lifetime.
I have absolute confidence in the ideologues of "freedom without responsibility" to whine like children when they're taxed to clean up fast food wrappers from the freeways but bitch like hell when their favorite fishing hole has human feces floating on it.

I have faith in politicians choosing their own career paths with lobbyists over the interests of Americans, the need for so many people to declare "leave me alone" like a child until their jobs are moved overseas. Then "where's government when you need them."

I have faith in Americans electing representatives for all the wrong reasons.

I have faith in people choosing simple solutions that allow politicians to exploit their ignorance. BTW, that more often than not includes me. Why? Because the news services have utterly failed us. Why? Cause we prefer Jerry Springer.

Once we had a true intelligentsia; now we only have greedy CEOs who don't give a rat's ass about American ideals. Maybe they never did outside of a person's right to tear the American economy a new azzhole.

You see.... I'm a man of faith.
Thank you for listening... come again.

RE: Oh for heaven's sake...
By walk2k on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Oh for heaven's sake...
By Jeffk464 on 6/23/2010 8:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a perfect understanding of the US to me.

RE: Oh for heaven's sake...
By YashBudini on 6/23/2010 11:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
"I have faith in Americans electing representatives for all the wrong reasons."

The only problem with this statement is that it applies to both parties. Still worth a +1 however.

RE: Oh for heaven's sake...
By MindParadox on 6/23/2010 4:18:47 PM , Rating: 3
oh, i dunno, cause quite simply, its a piece of crap?

increasing the backpressure of your exhaust does three things:
one, speeds the heat time of the catylitic converter, ok, good
causes the O2 sensor to go to a different voltage range, causing the EGR to lean out the engine giving a MINIMAL increase in fuel economy ok, good

and 3, drops the overall power of the car by a rather large percentage. ooops! thats bad to most people who buy the gas guzzlers based on the overall power of the car!

RE: Oh for heaven's sake...
By HotFoot on 6/23/2010 4:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
Any minimal increase in fuel economy from a different fuel mixture is going to be easily overcome by the extra inefficiency imposed by the back-pressure. The power consumed by this exhaust device is the exhaust gas volumetric flow rate times the pressure drop across the device. It doesn't take too much for that to amount to a few HP.

The simple solution.
By titanmiller on 6/23/2010 9:14:56 PM , Rating: 1
Instead of filling your battery in one go like we do with gasoline or diesel, fill it every time you stop. Now the grocery store doesn't just sell food, they also sell electricity at every parking spot. The same would be true of every business with a parking lot. Forget about parking meters; use electricity revenue to replace meter profits.

In the connected world we live in now. The very first locations to have plugs would be easily located with GPS enabled smart phones. A simple matter of 'directions>nearest plug' and your phone routes you directly to the location. In dash navigation could compare your current charge status with the distance to the nearest plug. It would let you know when it is critical to plug in based on the driving distance.

RE: The simple solution.
By Lazarus Dark on 6/23/2010 10:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
I like your thinking. Accept, as much as I love the all-in-one convenience of my Droid, that navigation needs to be built into the car... with NO service contract. Provided that only navigation data is provided, a lifetime subscription to nav service should be included with the vehicle cost because now that I think about it, for the next 20 years this navigation will actually be essential for electric vehicles while charging infrastructure is being built out.

RE: The simple solution.
By shin0bi272 on 6/24/2010 12:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
Thats kinda the problem... these things take 8 hours to charge at 120v or 1-2hrs at 480v. Then after your hours of charging you get to go a handful of miles and then you have to wait a few hours again. It also doesnt tell you this but the guys on top gear found out when they tested the new tesla roadster last year that if you drive fast in an EV you get (stunning voice) LESS MILEAGE! (/stunning voice) The top gear track is like 1mile around I think they said and the Tesla roadster couldnt go around it at top speed of the Stig's (aka Michael Schumaker) driving. So if you floor it with an EV you get really shitty mileage.

Then if you wanted to put 480v plugs at every business or parking space (first of all how dangerous is that?) youd have to put money in the parking meter and in the power plug meter to be able to charge your car to have enough charge to drive home. That roll out of power stations is a HUGE expense. That expense will likely be done on the federal state and local government level through mandates. Mandates mean taxes go up so the people who got federal subsidies to buy an EV also get subsides to have a charging station put in... so in other words...

The ecomentalists get a free ride in both the purchase of their cars AND the refueling of their cars for life because they believe in something that has been proven to NOT BE OUR FAULT! Why should everyone get to buy the eco nutjobs a car and gas for life because they support us all giving up a little more of our freedom to the government? Please go read "the road to serfdom" or "atlas shrugged"... you will never think that these stupid ass EV's are a good idea again.

By ssjwes1980 on 6/23/2010 9:47:01 PM , Rating: 3
Is it just me ?

Everyone I know wants this or that of the same thing that they have always liked. No one I know wants an electric car all of the sudden. Far as I know everyone I know doesnt like them/thinks they are impractical...

RE: really?
By TSS on 6/24/2010 8:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
Well cmon that mostly comes from having a petrol-car based society for a century. Breaking that will come with these issues even if we'd go from electric to petrol.

The only real problem is lack of a charging infrastructure and lack of a selection of EV's, mostly due to the above. The infrastructure is the most important part of it, far more important then tax credits for EV's because charging stations will benifit alot more people, and entice more to start using them.

This is a longer term bet, and most people are shortsighted. I'll bet those same people wouldn't even consider a petrol car because "they smell, are noisy and have a limited range" if there where only 100 gas stations throughout the country.

Wether the bet will pay off or not is anybody's guess. Wether sticking to oil will pay off is easy: no.

By Spivonious on 6/23/2010 3:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Did the federal government give money to build gas stations?

RE: Huh?
By Wy White Wolf on 6/23/2010 4:01:48 PM , Rating: 2

It's the first step towards socialing the charging of EVs. Whether the communities allow competition against them in the future will determine how far it goes.

Keep pimping that spill Mick
By bill4 on 6/24/2010 3:16:36 AM , Rating: 2
By Mark Murray Deputy political director NBC News updated 5:29 p.m. CT, Wed., June 23, 2010 Mark Murray Deputy political director Two months of oil continuing to gush from a well off the Gulf Coast, as well as an unemployment rate still near 10 percent, have taken a toll on President Barack Obama and his standing with the American public, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. For the first time in the survey, more disapprove of his job performance than approve; for the first time in his presidency, more than 60 percent believe the country is on the wrong track; and as he relieves Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his command in Afghanistan, Obama’s scores on being able to handle a crisis and on being decisive have plummeted since last year.

RE: Keep pimping that spill Mick
By shin0bi272 on 6/24/2010 12:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
If the oil spill and UE rate have "taken their toll" on obama then why do 48% still find him favorable? His favorable rating has remained around 50% for months while UE hasn't moved even when he hired half a million people to do the census. Who are the people that these pollsters are talking to DC lobbyists?

Taxes & Power
By sleepeeg3 on 6/23/2010 11:38:05 PM , Rating: 3
That is all this is about. Pulling the wool over sheeple's eyes to buy their liberal votes, pay for all the recent socialist expansions and raise taxes on America.

The economy has tanked and what are Democrats doing about it? Spending even MORE money and increasing the tax burden?

It's amusing that the government's investment in rail was mentioned as a reason for pushing EVs. Amtrak has been losing money for over 40 years! Each passenger costs us $38:

Americans will be "encouraged" to start using EVs when they are efficient and affordable. Taxing the struggling auto industry and consumers even more, will take away more money from research and only delay this further from happening.

Call me when EVs make sense. I will be the first in line. Until then - bite me!

Wooooooot Actioin!!!
By kaoken on 6/24/2010 1:03:17 AM , Rating: 3
But I wish they would make EVs cheaper instead of fining lol.

By DuctTapeAvenger on 6/24/2010 9:38:13 AM , Rating: 3

Air plug
By owyheewine on 6/24/2010 10:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
First there was a sky hook to lift large unmanageable objects. Now we'll have air plugs to get eletricity to power electric vehicles.

By xler8r on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fines
By bupkus on 6/23/2010 3:39:08 PM , Rating: 1
The environment, geopolitics just don't give a beaver's butt whether folks can or can't afford their gas guzzlers or how much it costs in some metric we call dollars.

As for Southerners, what're they gonna do... secede?

RE: Fines
By JediJeb on 6/23/2010 4:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
As for Southerners, what're they gonna do... secede?

Might as well give it another try, maybe this time we will succeed.

RE: Fines
By ClownPuncher on 6/24/2010 2:54:36 PM , Rating: 2
I hope so, the rest of the US's literacy rate, per capita income, and overall health would spike!

I jest.

RE: Fines
By Flunk on 6/23/2010 3:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
This brings up a good point, why do you all buy those huge trucks in the first place?

This is a genuine question, I have no idea.

RE: Fines
By Nfarce on 6/23/2010 4:08:59 PM , Rating: 5
why do you all buy those huge trucks in the first place?

There is a lot of misconception out there on pickup trucks. Millions of people in America use "huge" pickup trucks (that means full sized to the rest of us) for their very livelihood.

We have farmers, fishermen, construction business owners, handyman/repair business owners, maintenance business owners, landscape business owners, and just about anything else you can think of that a cute little EV Prius is not going to cut the job for.

Now there are those regular households who also own full sized trucks to tow travel trailers, boats, and their own work and car trailers. Further, said households with a truck just generally like to have a one "for the need" like getting firewood, moving appliances, and countless other things that, again, a cute little EV like a Prius won't cut it for. As one who has owned three full sized trucks, count me in all of the above.

RE: Fines
By Flunk on 6/23/2010 4:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
Then how do the Europeans get by with 90% less large truck sales?

I understand that some people genuinely need this sort of vehicle for work, I'm referring to those who don't.

RE: Fines
By integr8d on 6/23/2010 4:28:11 PM , Rating: 5
They tax everything so high that their people never have a chance to own anything that might be towed.

RE: Fines
By Flunk on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fines
By ClownPuncher on 6/23/2010 4:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Who says we don't need them? Who decides what I need and what I don't? The idea of punishing me, someone who uses their large vehicle for what it was intended, because some people just think they're pretty cool to own seems a bit...unconstitutional.

Freedom isn't defined by what the populace wants from the individual.

RE: Fines
By ClownPuncher on 6/23/2010 4:48:44 PM , Rating: 3
Most people in Europe live in the city, don't own any land, and have less need to build since their cultures have been established for a thousand years.

RE: Fines
By JediJeb on 6/23/2010 4:52:06 PM , Rating: 1
Most Europeans can purchase the things they need within easy delivery distance from where they purchase it. When you have to drive 50 miles or more to the nearest store, you usually want to bring what you bought back with you. Besides which uses the more fuel, driving your car to Lowe's go get lumber then having it delivered on a big truck or driving your truck to Lowe's and bringing it back yourself?

RE: Fines
By shin0bi272 on 6/24/2010 12:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
I used to live 35 miles from the nearest clothier and/or mall. So I can say you are exactly right.

Europeans should try doing a remodel when the nearest sheet rock for sale is 30-50 miles away... Try strapping 20 sheets of 4'x8' sheetrock to the top of your Mondeo! LOL or better yet your 160,000 pound mercedes!

RE: Fines
By UNHchabo on 6/23/2010 5:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
Most Europeans who actually do try to tow something use a car that's far too small to do the job properly.

This is why the Top Gear presenters are always ranting about caravans and horse trailers all going 20mph under the speed limit; it's because people take their normal commuter car with a 1.8L engine, and try to haul 3 or 4 tons of weight with it. Not only that, hauling that much weight is probably going to take more fuel with a smaller engine that has to rev like crazy than if you had a larger engine with more torque, that was able to essentially idle while pulling that load.

Let's take England, as a case in point, and compare it with the region of New England, in the northeast US. England is about twice the area of New England, but with four times the population. This means that despite New England being a fairly well-settled region (compared with Wyoming, for instance), there's more land available per person. Because of this, even people in this region have more room for multiple vehicles. If someone wants to own a small, efficient commuter car, and also own a pickup for when they need to haul things, they have more room to do so, because storage space is cheaper.

RE: Fines
By Nfarce on 6/23/2010 8:03:40 PM , Rating: 1
Top Gear is hilarious and one of my favorite automotive TV shows. If you ever see pictures of some little car overloaded with junk to where the rear bumper is about to touch the ground, you can just about gaurantee it's not in America with the exception of maybe West Virginia or rural Alabama.

But these comments about what Europeans use and what Americans need is laughable. I've been to Germany, Austria, France, and Italy. Everything is close in. Some cities and neighborhoods people don't even need cars. And in said cities and neighborhoods you can toss a stick of butter through the window to your neighbor.

RE: Fines
By invidious on 6/23/2010 4:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
If someone wants to buy a truck they don't need to justify it to anyone else. At least most of them are supporting the American auto industry.

The last thing this country needs is an artifically supported EV market that will collapse once the federal subsidies dry up. The last time the democrats did this was on the housing market and look how that turned out.

RE: Fines
By gamerk2 on 6/23/2010 4:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, considering housing prices were relativly stable under the entire Clinton white house (rising from an average of about $120k to about $160k toward the end of his term). During the Bush years, we get more then a doubling of that (over $400k at one point!).

My point being, a classic Supply Side bubble. Ironically, the average price of a house is back down to about $180k, or about where they SHOULD be. In short: I doubt we'll see any recovery, as we're already at the proper value for housing [at least, unless wages start to rise, which I don't see happening anytime soon].

RE: Fines
By AEvangel on 6/23/2010 4:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, considering housing prices were relativly stable under the entire Clinton white house (rising from an average of about $120k to about $160k toward the end of his term). During the Bush years, we get more then a doubling of that (over $400k at one point!).

Yes, your right they were, but it was because of a Clinton initiative passed with a Republican House and Senate that allowed FNMA and FHLMC to make loans for people who couldn't afford them. Thus leading to the Housing bubble under Bush which resulted in the economic downfall under Obama.

Please stop trying to insinuate Democrats or Republicans as some type of good guy/bad guy, their all the same corporate puppets.

RE: Fines
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2010 6:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes so instead of bubbles with highs and lows, let's depress the economy into one huge "stable" recession where the good times never happen.


"Bubbles" are just another Liberal talking point keyword. Bubbles aren't inherently bad or good. They are just reality. Any measures to stop "bubbles" will only result in an economic downturn.

Suppressing growth isn't the answer Gamerk2.

RE: Fines
By shin0bi272 on 6/24/2010 12:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
Go look up FAS157 and super impose the dates between when that bill was passed (by democrats) and repealed (by democrats) with the stock market.

Your supposition is that clinton didnt try to socialize medicine and didnt raise taxes by the largest margin in decades before the republicans took over both houses of congress. Your supposition is wrong... If clinton had gotten his way the entire economy would have collapsed at the end of the millennium due to the weight of the government. Its the cloward and piven strategy...

They were 60's radicals who wanted socialism to take over the government but knew it couldnt happen until capitalism got blamed for collapsing the economy (something which some people ... probably you... blame on the collapse of 08). So they designed a system where you inflate the number of poor people dependent on the government for their every need and that will collapse the system... which they can then blame on capitalism not taking care of the poor and put socialist in charge.

RE: Fines
By walk2k on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fines
By Nfarce on 6/23/2010 7:59:02 PM , Rating: 5
I just think you should have to have a contractor's license or other legit business to own a pickup truck

Spoken like a true fascist liberal wingnut.

As far as towing boats etc... those are luxury items and should be taxed as such.

They already are, genius. They are taxed at purchase and taxed annually by the state they are registered in. Kinda like cars.

RE: Fines
By shin0bi272 on 6/24/2010 12:31:04 PM , Rating: 1
I hope that something you want is taxed out of your price range due to some lobbyist or environmentalist group not liking it. There's lots of plastic in those video games you undoubtedly play 24/7 when youre not in class with the rest of your teenage friends... Plastic comes from oil so lets tax video games and consoles at 1000%! Are you pissed off now? Your favorite past time is being called evil because someone else doesnt like it. Your means of escape from reality is being taxed an obscene amount because of people with deep pockets and a D in math. Are you pissed off yet? How about we start taxing KY jelly so you and your boyfriend cant afford it and you and he have to rape each others assholes dry because ky is a petrolium based product and it comes in a plastic tube... So it must be taxed! How about 500 dollars a tube? Are you pissed off yet?

RE: Fines
By ClownPuncher on 6/23/2010 4:10:35 PM , Rating: 3
I would say a good percentage use them for what they were made for. Offroad activities, camping, pulling a trailer, hauling construction supplies, getting places otherwise closed off to smaller vehicles, fishing, filling the bed with all of our wive's potted plants. Some people just buy them for looks, but most of us USE our trucks/SUV's.

Look at the contruction industry, landscaping, contractors, you name it, many people put these "evil" vehicles to good use.

RE: Fines
By walk2k on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Fines
By xler8r on 6/23/10, Rating: 0
By Masospaghetti on 6/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Maybe...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/23/2010 6:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
Congressmen need to grow a pair and enact a gasoline fuel tax instead.

We already have those.

I have a better idea: Go f#@$ yourself.

RE: Maybe...
By YashBudini on 6/23/2010 11:43:40 PM , Rating: 2
Good thinking.

No wait

RE: Maybe...
By piroroadkill on 6/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: Maybe...
By piroroadkill on 6/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Maybe...
By zombiexl on 6/24/2010 10:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
So because your country is fucked up ours should be too? I'm pretty damn sure theres a reason we fought for freedom from English rule.

We already pay taxes on fuel. Speaking of taxes, during some recent research I found (what i already suspected) that people pay more in taxes to the government on a pack of cigarettes than the company making the product makes. Should fuel be the same way? I don't think so and I doubt anyone who actually knows anything about history would disagree.

RE: Maybe...
By JediJeb on 6/24/2010 2:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
I am starting a study on what happens to large centralized governments and so far it doesn't look good. Go back into history to the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, then England, France and Spain during their Colonial times and others. Once the power became centralized instead of spread out (like the Greek City States or the state and local US governments) and tribute or taxes were raised to allow the centralized government take care of the citizens instead of the burden being spread out in a decentralized manner, problems began. Governments become corrupted, taxes are increased to cover the perceived needs of the citizens to keep them happy and the rulers in power. Eventually every one of these "Empires" crumbled. Usually it comes as a mixture of dissent from within and attacks from the outside. The Founding Fathers of the US realized this and it why they set up our government as a tiered division of power to be distributed to Federal, State, and Local governments.

Today in the US we are beginning to see this taken away as the leaders are trying to bring us more and more into a heavily centralized government that controls every aspect of our lives. The question is will the US soon follow the path of all other governments of this type in the past? History says the odds are good the same will happen. Can anyone show an example of a large centralized government that has survived without collapsing? If so I would like to study that civilization to see where we might be able to improve ours today.

RE: Maybe...
By shin0bi272 on 6/24/2010 12:23:33 PM , Rating: 1
hey here's an idea... move! If you dont like the gas tax or the prices in the UK ... move!

For an idea of where you should move go here

The higher the country is on the freedom index the better off you are... and hey Ireland is close to you and its even more free than the USA! Move there and stfu!

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

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