backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Dec 9 at 3:39 PM


President Obama with a Chevrolet Volt

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA)  (Source: flickr.com)
Despite recent issues with the Chevrolet Volt's battery, GM expects increased Volt sales for November and a recent survey found that Volt customers are satisfied. A GOP lawmaker may, however, ruin EV success by fighting the $7,500 tax credit

General Motors Co. may have hit a few speed bumps this year with the Chevrolet Volt extended-range EV's battery-related incidents, but things seem to be looking up with an expected increase in November Volt sales and a recent survey that confirmed Volt customer satisfaction.

The Chevrolet Volt had its best-ever sales month in October 2011, but according to GM Spokesman Jim Cain, November Volt sales are expected to surpass the previous month.

In October, GM sold 1,108 Volts, which was the first time it had outsold the Nissan Leaf EV since April. For the year through October, GM sold a total of 5,003 Volts.

Experts say that it is now very unlikely that GM will meet its sales goal of 10,000 Volts sold in 2011, but GM predicts increased sales in November over the month of October. The final sales figures for November have not yet been released.

Perhaps the reason for increased sales expectations is Volt customer satisfaction. According to a recent survey by Consumer Reports, Chevrolet Volt owners "love their cars."

The Consumer Reports survey, which was released Thursday, is based on over 314,000 opinions of 2009-2012 model year vehicles. The survey found that 93 percent of Volt owners who participated said they'd buy the EV again.

However, the survey was conducted only a few months after the Volt hit showrooms, and mainly consisted of early buyers and enthusiasts. The survey was also taken before the formal investigation of Volt/lithium battery safety began.

Earlier this year, the Volt underwent a series of tests at a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) facility in Wisconsin. Three weeks after a side-impact crash test on May 12, the Volt went up in flames while parked at the facility, catching nearby vehicles on fire.

This sparked a NHTSA investigation, where three more Volts were tested November 16, 17 and 18. One battery had normal results while another emitted sparks and smoke, and the third caught on fire one week later. The NHTSA is now conducting a formal investigation of the vehicle's safety.

The Volt may be seeing the upside of a nasty situation for now with a potential sales increase and customer satisfaction, but one GOP lawmaker is looking to throw a wrench in the EV industry's success by fighting the $7,500 tax credit.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) told Congress Wednesday that he wants the $7,500 tax credit for EVs to cease because he says electric vehicles have not met desired goals and the tax credit only benefits the wealthy. He specifically noted that the annual income of Volt owners is $175,000.

"[The Volt] has become the poster child of President Obama's failed green agenda," said Kelly. "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's "like many other green initiatives promoted by this administration" comment was more than likely referring to this year's Solyndra disaster, where the U.S. government loaned solar panel company Solyndra $535 million in 2009 despite warnings that the company would go bankrupt. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy on September 6, 2011.

Sources: The Detroit News, The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


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

Duh....
By Breathless on 12/1/2011 11:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
No one should get a tax credit for purchasing a vehicle. What kind of retarded society is this that this sort of thing is expected?




RE: Duh....
By mufdvr3669 on 12/1/2011 12:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think tax credits are a bad thing to develop an industry, I find it bad taste when said industry is making record profits and still continue to get those tax breaks like big oil. Oil has gotten billions of dollars in tax breaks over many years. It's hard to expect green energy to compete when they have such a disadvantage from the start.


RE: Duh....
By Rajeve on 12/2/2011 9:27:11 AM , Rating: 2
Imagine if at the inception of Apple's I technolgy, if the Government wanted to subsidize that "new technology". Guaranteed if that happened, today we would not have the IPhone, and anything since then out of Apple would have cost so much more than the rest of the phones out there that these phones would need "tax breaks" to get people to buy them! The oil company "tax breaks" you and other Socialists talk about are a misleading phrase. The Govt first raises taxes and "fees" on drilling, transporting etc of the oil company. Let us take this new rate as an example to be 50% of profits. Then they drop the rate to 30% through legistlation or regulations. Then they tell the public (such as yourself) Oh, look, that oil company is getting a 20% tax break, those fat cats! This is the big lie (mostly by Democrats). Last year oil co taxes were in excess of 15 billion. Not to mention, most of our 401Ks are riding on these "oil profits" too!!!


RE: Duh....
By The Raven on 12/5/2011 12:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imagine if at the inception of Apple's I technolgy, if the Government wanted to subsidize that "new technology".
Ever been to a US public school? Gov't grants to buy half baked tech look just like subsidies to me :-P


RE: Duh....
By tallcool1 on 12/1/2011 12:20:11 PM , Rating: 5
Sheeple who do not realize (or care) that other citizens are footing $7,500 of the bill for them.

Anybody that got $7,500 for FREE to help pay for their car purchase would "love their car" that much better...

If it is true that "annual income of Volt owners is $175,000", I'm sorry but they do not need our tax dollars to help them buy a car, period!

That $7,500 would go better towards re-training an out of work individual for an available job, helping the homeless, helping low income single parents, etc, etc. There are a lot better things I can think of to put our tax dollars too, besides helping someone who makes a good living already purchase an expensive hybrid car.


RE: Duh....
By Dr of crap on 12/1/2011 12:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, and on another posting about the Volt, I was told If I could not afford a Volt or any car at $40K I had better get a beter job.

So $175,000 on average, eh.
I don't quite make that much and even if I did I wouldn't waste my cash on this car. Sorry.


RE: Duh....
By Spuke on 12/1/2011 1:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't quite make that much and even if I did I wouldn't waste my cash on this car.
Me either.


RE: Duh....
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 6:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
For me GM would have to prove it has developed an entire new culture and mindset building cars.

GM has worked with this motto for far too long: There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over. My last GM car had more problems and recalls than my 5 prior GM cars combined, three of which were Vegas, the engineering disaster of the 70's.

The last thing you ever want to buy is a GM car that's in high demand and flying off the assembly line. The other model is the one that just completed a cost reduction project.


RE: Duh....
By room200 on 12/1/2011 1:50:37 PM , Rating: 1
Umm, there are a lot of people who don't own homes who are poor or lower middle class who "subsidize" the tax credit homeowners get for their house. Is THAT fair? If you own a home, I'll bet they're not too keen on giving that tax credit up; I know I'm not. I don't have any children, yet I subsidize the tax credits people who have children get. Should I be able to moan and groan about that? I'm not attacking you, and I agree with what you say. I'm simply playing devil's advocate.


RE: Duh....
By tng on 12/1/2011 2:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is THAT fair?
Well no, if it were strictly true, but it really isn't. Despite the fact that there is a mortgage credit they still pay taxes on dozens of things associated with owning a home that people living in an apartment do not, so it does pay off in more taxes elsewhere. Property taxes on those homes got to many services in my area, including parks, local roads, police, fire,shelters,etc... All things that those poor people who don't own homes take advantage of.

By the same argument I can say that the tax credit for having a child under 18 as a dependent is subsidized by my taxes, but people who have kids probably pay even more in taxes raising them than I ever will on my house.


RE: Duh....
By room200 on 12/2/2011 6:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
It is strictly true, and the republicans are trying to wipe out those home tax credits too.

The same argument could be made for those who drive vs. those who don't. The car owner pays taxes on gas, repairs, maintenance, license plates, window stickers, etc. Those taxes go to pay for roads, bridges, all the things that people who do not drive also have to pay for.

Also, poor people pay taxes too; they simply pay less in income taxes. All the other taxes on cars, food, etc. the pay the say as anyone else.


RE: Duh....
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 11:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, poor people pay taxes too; they simply pay less in income taxes.

Yes, but taxes on booze and cigarettes can be eluded. So here yes, it's their own damn fault.


RE: Duh....
By tng on 12/2/2011 5:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks Yash. I have to agree with the taxes for schools, they are very high where I am and I don't have any kids.

As for his statement that it is "strictly true", it isn't really. Taxes individuals pay vary widely according to lifestyle and location.

It is simply not fair to say that people who don't own their own home are subsidizing those that do while ignoring how property taxes on those homes subsidize many of the things apartment dwellers take advantage of.


RE: Duh....
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 6:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
There are some self proclaimed know-it-alls here that try to force you into their B&W world. They have yet to succeed with a single person.

For the purposes of proving the rich pay too much everything except fed income tax is dismissed. For the purposes of Joe Average the method may include things like SS and gas taxes, which don't amount to much for a billionaire. Then of course besides beer and cigarettes the lottery is considered a "tax on the poor" by some, usually those complaining about taxes the loudest. Do we ever see a graph of all the taxes imposed no? No, not because it's not worthy, but because it undermines the rich argument.

Ask any person in Greece, rich or poor, and they will all tell you the country has been pillaged by politicians for decades. And are politicians poor? Sorry they fall into the rich category, no big surprise there.

In this state seniors below a certain (very low) income no longer pay school taxes. Apparently driving them into poverty (and into nursing homes once broke where everybody but the elderly pick up the tab) or forcing them to move away is viewed as a bad thing. Damn those progressives!


RE: Duh....
By tng on 12/2/2011 6:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I understand.

I whine about taxes as much as the next guy. Are my taxes to high? Yes, but not for the reason most people would think.

I think that I could probably stomach more taxes if the people who were spending it were not such bozos. Conservative or Progressive, they are all bozos. If they knew what they were doing, instead of just throwing money at everything, I could be convinced that higher taxes were OK.

While I don't think that the most wealthy in the world would really be hurt by a tax increase, I don't want it to become a habit that when the bozos come up short, they just increase taxes. Eventually the definition of "Rich" gets to the point of including people like you and me.


RE: Duh....
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 7:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Conservative or Progressive, they are all bozos.

And it's each party's goal to convince their sheeple of everything but this fact. And many fall for the propaganda, cause they like it. As Jesse Ventura said, the US is a 2 party dictatorship. And too many bozos are still riding the bus.

quote:
I think that I could probably stomach more taxes if the people who were spending it were not such bozos.

That's the very reason so much of Europe tolerated it for so long, frankly they always got more for their money than we ever did. and wanting to stay informed versus ignoring what's going on is one of the reasons that happened over there. Of course there are situations beyond one's control. They 1967 Greek revolution brought in a junta that turned out and sold all the military gear Greece had and then disappeared.

quote:
Eventually the definition of "Rich" gets to the point of including people like you and me.

An excellent example of that would be the AMT. It was developed and implemented in its day for all the right reasons, but it wasn't adjusted for inflation. Why is that? You'd have to ask them.

Anyway if you live in an area with $300,000 home that's average there, and have been investing since IRAs and 401Ks have been out with a decent salary you can be a millionaire on paper without being "rich." Well off, but not so comfortable you never worry about anything again. I don't think a lot of people get that. I'm nowhere near that, but people who live in higher cost areas may have this scenario as quite common.

But you have to worry less then before about actually becoming rich, Wall St is making sure you never reach the rich level. Here's a great example
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/07/go...

quote:
I whine about taxes as much as the next guy.

It seems people whine more today than decades ago when rates were higher. It's a national past time, the way Europeans drink coffee. I tell people I wish I was paying half a million a year in taxes, because I'd definitely could get by on what's left. The emphasis on this statement is not on wanting to pay taxes(the way Murdoch would twist it around), but to have the ability to pay it, ie a big salary.


RE: Duh....
By Mint on 12/9/2011 3:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
You should really take a closer look at the spending. The bozo spending really only accounts for a small fraction. Add up all the controversial things like the EV credit, Solyndra loan, etc and you get almost nothing. They're just talking points that are successful because the general populace has no sense of scale. Million, billion, and trillion really mean nothing to them.

The majority of federal spending is either in direct transfers (SS/welfare/unemployment), Medicare that is already paying less than free market, or military spending that the US public supports so much that it would be political suicide to cut.

The federal gov't payroll is ~$180B out of total spending of $3729B. If you think that 5% is too much and cut public workers, you get job losses because the private sector can't find work for 13M people right now, so few of them would get jobs elsewhere. The newly unemployed's reduced consumption then creates even more job losses.

Everyone and their mother makes claims about wasteful spending, but nothing significant ever gets done about them because nobody ever notices. It's simple math.

We need higher taxes now, as we're stealing from future generations. Deal with the reality of insufficient revenues today, and stop the pipe dream of a magical economic boom solving all our problems. If we decide to cut military spending or, god forbid, make the poor even poorer, then we can consider bringing taxes back down a bit.


RE: Duh....
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 12:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but people who have kids probably pay even more in taxes raising them than I ever will on my house.

I wonder just how much more, since I pay school taxes and don't have any kids.


RE: Duh....
By Masospaghetti on 12/1/2011 2:02:00 PM , Rating: 2
New technology is expensive and it's difficult to get over the "hump", where economies of scale can start pushing prices down. It's not any different than other industries with innovation. First generation of almost anything is expensive. In this case, it has the potential to significantly reduce petroleum consumption.

quote:
That $7,500 would go better towards re-training an out of work individual for an available job, helping the homeless, helping low income single parents, etc, etc. There are a lot better things I can think of to put our tax dollars too, besides helping someone who makes a good living already purchase an expensive hybrid car.


I would argue this expenditure has enough future benefit to be "worth it". On the other hand, there are plenty of government programs, especially entitlement, that have no future benefit or even negative future "benefits" because they breed complacency and government dependence. The $131 billion home interest deduction comes to mind, along with zero deductible medical plans under Medicaid.


RE: Duh....
By Rukkian on 12/1/2011 2:45:38 PM , Rating: 3
While I agree that subsidizing new technology can help get it to a level where prices come down, the only way that should make sense is if the manufacturer (Chevy in this case) is not making much (or any) off the product. The company is getting the benefit of not having to foot the entire bill for the tech, and getting a leg up to help further the technology.

I get the feeling that the ev cars out there are not actually any cheaper, as all the manufacturers are just inflating the price by $7500 since they know the consumer will get the rebate so they can pocket extra cash. If that is not the case, then show the books on what it costs to produce, and make it open.


RE: Duh....
By Masospaghetti on 12/1/2011 2:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
GM is not making a penny on each Volt they sell.

EVs are expensive. The Focus electric is going to be priced at $39,995, and so is the Plug-in Prius.


RE: Duh....
By Reclaimer77 on 12/1/2011 3:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM is not making a penny on each Volt they sell.


Yes and I would think that for a company that was just bailed out by the taxpayers from collapsing would be quite concerned about their new Golden Goose being a loss leader.

But then again, they DID have to be bailed out in the first place. So they tells you what kind of thinking is going on over there.


RE: Duh....
By Dr of crap on 12/2/2011 8:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
Really, you believe they aren't making ANY profits on these cars?
I find that WAY unlikely no matter what they say.
Think of all the R & D that went into it, and the marketing and over head. Unless this car's design was already done by someone else, but you'd still have to pay the designee!

I've heard that people want to go into the sales floor to see the Volt and then end up buying something else, so the Volt gets MORE people into the door. So for a very expensive marketing ploy the Volt is useful for that I guess.
Problem with that is that they were bailed out and a sales flop in the eyes of the tax payers doesn't look to good! And as a tax payer, I'll say I don't like it and I hope it's sales drop further yet! And I'll take my part of the $7500 they've handed out and use it for soemthing better.


RE: Duh....
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 6:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've heard that people want to go into the sales floor to see the Volt and then end up buying something else, so the Volt gets MORE people into the door.

Well the other option is a 60 second commercial during the Superbowl. And what a bargain that is.


RE: Duh....
By Mint on 12/9/2011 3:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
You're making unbased assumptions. Right now companies are milking those that want to buy EVs. It will take time for competition to take effect.

Look at the plug-in Prius. They basically added a charger and 3 kWh more battery. How on earth does that cost $5-10k?


You know why he wants to protect big oil
By mufdvr3669 on 12/1/2011 11:50:11 AM , Rating: 5
From thinkprogress.org:

Kelly’s defense of oil and gas subsidies is bad enough on the merits, but it is all the more troubling given that he owns up to $6.25 million in oil and gas companies. Kelly’s holdings include the following:

– Up to $5 million in Phillips Resources Inc., an oil and gas drilling company that is exploring major drilling expansions in the area of western Pennsylvania that Kelly represents

– Up to $1 million in TWP Gas and Oil, a natural gas company in western Pennsylvania




RE: You know why he wants to protect big oil
By SandmanWN on 12/1/2011 12:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
So? What's your point?
You don't seem to understand that raising taxes on oil causes more problems for the poor than any other tax bracket.

Tax breaks on expensive electric vehicles have no bearing on the poor... Why are you protecting rich people? For a progressive you really have your priorities jacked up.


RE: You know why he wants to protect big oil
By room200 on 12/1/2011 1:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
But you have to decide if your going to adopt a position and stick with it; if we're talking a PRIVATE business, such as an oil company, we should not be subsidizing them or protecting them. They have plenty enough cash to hire the BEST security and we shouldn't be doing it for them. The problem is, they blackmail us and tell us that if we take away the subsidy that they'll raise the price of oil. This is sheer craziness that we allow them to get away with this. THAT'S why we have to become energy independent and find alternatives to big oil.


RE: You know why he wants to protect big oil
By jimbojimbo on 12/1/2011 2:29:22 PM , Rating: 3
I agree that we need to get away from oil but if we take away the EV subsidy hardly anybody except may be EV manufacturers will be affected. If we take away oil subsidies everybody in the country will be directly affected not only in gas prices but because those higher gas prices will increase the price of everything. The people it would hurt the most are people on set budgets, primarily the poor or lower middle class. The people making $175,000 a year could care less.


By Dorkyman on 12/2/2011 10:07:56 AM , Rating: 2
I don't agree at all that we need to "get away from oil."

Hydrocarbons are a remarkably-compact source of portable energy. Modern society is built on them, and will continue to run on them. New extraction technologies have recently demonstrated that we are centuries away from reaching depletion.

I am reminded of a panicky article written in, of all places, the Scientific American around the early 1900's that concluded that, at current rates of increasing horse populations in Manhattan, by 1950 the city would be buried under 6 feet of manure.


By Ringold on 12/2/2011 11:18:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem is, they blackmail us and tell us that if we take away the subsidy that they'll raise the price of oil. This is sheer craziness that we allow them to get away with this.


Fail, fail fail.

I'm almost 100% certain that is not what they would ever say. They'd never say it, because they have zero direct control over the price of oil. Oil and natural gas are set by the market, by supply and demand. Notice that natural gas is awfully low, thanks to all the new supply the US has brought online over the past ten years.

What they might say is that with different government policies, supply may decrease or expand more slowly along with investment (as different policies can impact the economics of different energy projects), leading logically to higher prices than there otherwise would've been.


By mufdvr3669 on 12/1/2011 6:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So? What's your point? You don't seem to understand that raising taxes on oil causes more problems for the poor than any other tax bracket.


Raise taxes on oil, end tax breaks for oil companies. If poor are hurt by this then the monies that would have gone to oil companies could go towards the poor instead. Would rather a poor person receive direct help then a rich oilman.


By kingmotley on 12/1/2011 9:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point is that he has a vested interest in making sure that EV technology doesn't take off since that would hurt the oil/gas industry if it did. He's not voting with an unbiased mind, rather he's doing what benefits HIMSELF regardless of what is good for the public.

As for the tax breaks, the idea is that by subsidizing the first few years of EV technology, progress is made, and economies of scale kick in. You don't think this would affect the poor? Really? How would you like to see your train/bus ticket price drop significantly when they are able to run off electricity instead of the $10/gallon of gas that we're likely to see in the next 5-10 years? You don't think that would help? Or cheaper plastic containers that would come from a surplus in oil? Or god forbid if EV cars could eventually become cheaper than the gas alternative. Poor people don't need inexpensive cars that they can "gas" up for free using the sun. Stick $10/gallon to them, they like it.


By espaghetti on 12/1/2011 1:44:57 PM , Rating: 3
If I had my way, NO politician could receive a dime more than an average enlisted U.S. military personnel.

The President would get to live in a white house.

It would be a service to our country instead of an opportunity to crap all over the rest of us.

Hence the title Public Servant


Hmmm,
By Dr of crap on 12/1/2011 12:21:15 PM , Rating: 3
What was that I posted about being tired of seeing a Volt news snipet everyday, and someone posted no they don't.

Here on DT, three Volt news items in the past 4 days!

IMHO this is PR used to keep the Volt name out there, and MAYBE drum up more sales. And yes you could say that there have been negative news, but you know those marketing guys, they'll say that the name has been out there and they'll spin to a good thing any way they can!




RE: Hmmm,
By Masospaghetti on 12/1/2011 1:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm sure the publicity from Volts "bursting into flames" and having their EV tax credits removed is going to generate more sales. It's all a big Obama conspiracy.


RE: Hmmm,
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 11:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Just the same if you find yourself in a toll booth lane with a Chevy Volt in front of you and a Ford Pinto behind you I would suggest moving to a different lane.


Increased Sales? Well, Maybe. But...
By mmatis on 12/2/2011 7:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
how many will be coming BACK:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VOLT_BAT...

???

Or does it only count when they go OUT the door?




Stop Oil Subsidies Too
By EVsRoll on 12/5/2011 1:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
Oil subsidies are far greater than EV subsidies. If EV subsidies are stopped, stop oil subsidies too.

EVsRock!
http://www.evsroll.com/Oil_Company_Subsidies.html




A Republican in the House
By idiot77 on 12/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: A Republican in the House
By Chadder007 on 12/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: A Republican in the House
By idiot77 on 12/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: A Republican in the House
By Ringold on 12/2/2011 11:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
Your mentality leads to Greece. Tax rates could go to 100% for people making over 250k a year and it likely wouldn't close the deficit this fiscal year. Thats assuming they stayed, which real world experience shows that the rich can be footloose, so we'd never get that 100%. Not to mention the open question of how an economy can invest to create jobs without people with money.

The sooner we accept the "working people" are either receiving too much government support and/or aren't paying in enough, the more likely the US is to avoid the fate of so much of Europe.


RE: A Republican in the House
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 11:55:56 AM , Rating: 2
Greece is in trouble because tax evasion spread from the rich to the middle class. Many rules being forced upon Greece in their agreements deal with proper tax collection. The national sales tax created a huge underground economy.

It's true government workers used to have many benefits, but their civil service pay structure is much like what the US had decades ago, lots of benefits and puny salaries.

Greece is also overwhelmed with illegal aliens, Albanians cross the border just like Mexicans, and the crime that comes with them (not "it" R77). Jobs are also outsourced to Eastern Europe. Now factor in a small revenue base, total the size of a large city, along with military spending and other national needs, and what outcome would one expect? Oh, did we miss the fact that the national economy was heavily dependent on tourism? And how's tourism been since Wall St collapsed the global economy?


RE: A Republican in the House
By deltaend on 12/1/2011 12:20:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
.....but they won't kill the tax incentives to Big Oil? :)


Probably because you would scream and blame Republicans if gas prices rose even higher and thereby prices on anything that requires transportation (everything). Of course, you blame them for tax breaks on oil anyway, so I guess the common denominator is that you plan to blame Republicans for all problems. Don't worry, you aren't alone, most people in the world are not open minded enough to take the good with the bad and try to reserve judgment until all the facts become evident. It eventually becomes a kneejerk reaction to blame your political opposite for all of your perceived problems.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Rajeve on 12/2/2011 9:48:20 AM , Rating: 1
Dear Sir,
research this independantly. The oil tax "breaks" are a misnomer. The word is a inaccurate. What really happens is the companies are told that their taxes are, example 30%, then the Govt comes back pretending they worked hard at bringing that 30% down to 20%. They the Govt folks turn around to the public (along with a willing media) and tell them, "hey, those fat cats are getting a 10% tax break". Then the govt also turns around and takes nearly a dollar of taxes (state & Fed)from EACH GALLON sold for $3.70!!! The Govt makes money like bandits and you blame the oil companies!


RE: A Republican in the House
By morphologia on 12/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: A Republican in the House
By obsidian on 12/1/2011 11:53:52 AM , Rating: 3
Of course he is. All politicians are hypocrites in this regard.

However, him being a hypocrite doesn't change the fact that the EV tax credit is a gift to the affluent. Not many poor people spending $30k+ on a new car.


RE: A Republican in the House
By yomamafor1 on 12/1/2011 12:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the same group of people who are willing to be early adopters at a immature technology?


RE: A Republican in the House
By Schrag4 on 12/1/2011 1:06:06 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or what. Those early adopters should pay the $40,000 instead of the govt forcing us ALL to be early adopters, whether we end up owning the car or not. We all bought them in part with our tax dollars but only those that plunk down the $30,000+ end up owning them.

Personally, I think if the Volt was the same cost as its ICE-only counterpart, it would be a great idea. However, spending an extra 15k (or more) on a car to save a few k on gas over several years is idiotic (meaning if the decision was purely economic, it's a bad decision to buy a Volt). The only reason someone would buy it would be to wear it as a "green" badge of honor. If you desire to wear that badge, by all means, buy a Volt. But please stop asking me to pitch in to pay for your car.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Masospaghetti on 12/1/2011 1:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally, I think if the Volt was the same cost as its ICE-only counterpart, it would be a great idea.


You expect a car with an electric drive and ICE to be the same price as one with just an ICE? That's not realistic.

quote:
But please stop asking me to pitch in to pay for your car.


Subsidizing new technology allows it to gain a foothold in the market, where economies of scale gradually take over and make the technology self sustainable. At this point, everyone is better off.

quote:
However, spending an extra 15k (or more) on a car to save a few k on gas over several years is idiotic


The Volt is more luxurious than a typical $25k compact, but even in your example, the payback period is 7.5 years, maybe 10 years with the cost of money. Not unreasonable.

It's also a bad economic decision to buy a V8-powered Land Cruiser or to pay $1000 for "silver-buffed wood" on an Infiniti. Obviously buying a car is an emotional decision, so its not far to judge the Volt only on it's economic payback period just because it has one.

Also, it'd be naive to assume gas prices won't rise again.

The Volt isn't perfect. But I defend it because for once, an American company has the most advanced technology in the market and it works - in too many industries, and for too long in the automotive industry, the American companies have always been a step behind. It's refreshing, and I hope it succeeds. We're falling behind in the global economy, and innovation is the only way we can get back on top.


RE: A Republican in the House
By obsidian on 12/1/2011 2:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
Every industry has R&D costs with developing and marketing a new product. The auto industry is a multi-billion dollar industry (GM alone received a $50 billion bailout). They are the ones who should be footing the bill for developing new technology, not the taxpayer. There's no reason taxpayers should be forced to hand over money to multi-billion dollar companies.


RE: A Republican in the House
By tng on 12/1/2011 2:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Volt is more luxurious than a typical $25k compact, but even in your example, the payback period is 7.5 years, maybe 10 years with the cost of money. Not unreasonable.
Not realistic either. I don't expect that many people who bought this car are using it for a long daily commute so extend that time out to 10 to 15 years. Most people who I know in CA that want one only have about a 5 mile drive to work and at that rate it would be much longer.
quote:
It's also a bad economic decision to buy a V8-powered Land Cruiser or to pay $1000 for "silver-buffed wood" on an Infiniti.
Granted, I wouldn't do that either, but back to the point, I also would not expect Uncle Sam to give buyers of a Infiniti or Land Cruiser a kickback either.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Masospaghetti on 12/1/2011 4:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
...At the current price of fuel.

How much was a gallon of gasoline 10 years ago?


RE: A Republican in the House
By Dorkyman on 12/2/2011 10:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
Granted, it was cheaper under previous administrations. But I see that as an indictment of the current Bozo in the White House, who has gone out of his way to stifle exploration and stoke uncertainty in the industry.

Bozo leaves next year. Then the cost of gas will decrease.


RE: A Republican in the House
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 6:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Granted, it was cheaper under previous administrations.

Did you adjust for inflation or would that undermine your agenda?


RE: A Republican in the House
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 6:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
stifle exploration

Yeah, BP really got screwed with that issue.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Schrag4 on 12/1/2011 5:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You expect a car with an electric drive and ICE to be the same price as one with just an ICE? That's not realistic.


Actually I couldn't care less what it costs. If it's too expensive (it is) then I'll just get something else.

quote:
It's also a bad economic decision to buy a V8-powered Land Cruiser or to pay $1000 for "silver-buffed wood" on an Infiniti. Obviously buying a car is an emotional decision , so its not far to judge the Volt only on it's economic payback period just because it has one.


I don't see it that way. Perhaps if I had more cash than I knew what to do with then it would be an emotional decision. Or maybe if I just cared more about cars (I'm not a car guy). No, for me, it's about getting from point A to point B safely and cost-effectively. Dropping 30 or 40k on a new vehicle - any vehicle - just isn't a realistic option in my mind, when I can get my family and my stuff back and forth for so much less with a decent used vehicle. I'm glad so many other people are willing to take that 50% drop in value in the first several years of owning a new car, though.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Spuke on 12/1/2011 6:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm glad so many other people are willing to take that 50% drop in value in the first several years of owning a new car, though.
This is why I'm pretty much done with new cars. The loss of value is just not worth it when I can simply buy a used one with low miles without the depreciation hit.


RE: A Republican in the House
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 12:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
I always questioned whether a leased car with low miles was a good buy. The owner knew they weren't going to keep it, how well would anyone maintain a car under such conditions?

Consider buying last years model near the end of December. And buying a car that finished 2nd or 3rd in a magazine's article saves some money as well.


RE: A Republican in the House
By omnicronx on 12/1/2011 5:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, spending an extra 15k (or more) on a car to save a few k on gas over several years is idiotic (meaning if the decision was purely economic, it's a bad decision to buy a Volt). The only reason someone would buy it would be to wear it as a "green" badge of honor. If you desire to wear that badge, by all means, buy a Volt. But please stop asking me to pitch in to pay for your car.
So let me get this straight, you don't think there should be an incentive, but you outright admit that nobody is going to buy the car (outside of those wanting to wear the green badge) if it costs 40K.

We are talking about technology that needs to supplant another with over 100 years of technological (let alone manufacturing) improvements. Unless you want to wait another 50 years, some kind of incentive has to be offered.

Not saying its justified (if the power comes from the grid you are still paying for it, not sure if any kind of cost benefit has been performed) but you are clearly missing the point of why it was implemented in the first place.

Many of the technological improvements you use everyday, could have been years away if not for government subsidy, just remember that...

All of this said, why is it being offered now? I'm pretty sure GM is producing as many Volt's as they can, and would sell for 40k to the normal early adopters just as easily without the incentive. It should be removed until the incentive will actually help drive sales. i.e Until manufacturers increase production and start having trouble moving these vehicles at 40k, until then mass adoption is not really under way anyways.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Schrag4 on 12/1/2011 5:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So let me get this straight, you don't think there should be an incentive, but you outright admit that nobody is going to buy the car (outside of those wanting to wear the green badge) if it costs 40K.


Well, as others who defend the tax credit here have pointed out, the Volt is considered a "luxury" car. So to answer your question, NO, I absolutely do not think the govt should be handing out tax incentives for luxury items.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Grast on 12/1/2011 6:05:02 PM , Rating: 1
so question for you. when ICE cars were just starting to suplant the standard for the day in 1880's (horses and horse draw carrage), did the government substidize Americans to buy these new devices? Anwser: NO NO and NO.

It was only until 1913 when Ford mastered the assymbly line did the cost of cars come down to the point where it was economical for the average person to own.

**************

How about computers. In the 1970's, when personal computers were just coming about. did the federal government substidize the industry in order to make computers take off?

Answer: NO NO and NO

****************

How about the other great inventions of the 1900's? How many of these devices had to recieve government assistance in order to take off.

Answer: VERY FEW to NONE

*******************

The final anwser to this question is that government programs like the Volt incentinves unfairly asks every tax paying American to take on the risk for a new product.

all of the risk for the Volt should be GM and it's share holders. American tax payers should not be flipping the bill.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Reclaimer77 on 12/1/2011 9:06:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Many of the technological improvements you use everyday, could have been years away if not for government subsidy, just remember that...


I think you're just saying that because it sounds good. I doubt you have any idea if this is true or not. Please give me a list of consumer products that we use that were helped to the market because of a tax credit.


RE: A Republican in the House
By mufdvr3669 on 12/2/2011 3:11:08 AM , Rating: 2
How about research from Universities and such that receive government to create new technologies such as medicine? A lot of medical advances happen through government loans and grants to researchers and also to tax breaks for the companies for developing medications and such.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Reclaimer77 on 12/2/2011 7:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
Giving people money to buy a freaking car is nothing even close to a research loan or grant. You're not even on the same subject here dude.


RE: A Republican in the House
By mchentz on 12/1/2011 6:49:23 PM , Rating: 2
If I could rate this response up I would but I have to few posts to rate yet.


RE: A Republican in the House
By jimbojimbo on 12/1/2011 2:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
If I go buy an electric car will you give me $7500 cash?? Hey, I'm buying "immature technology" so you should give me that money no questions asked.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Reclaimer77 on 12/1/2011 3:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
It really hurts when people say "Republicans only care about the rich.". I'm a Republican and I'm not rich. I also care about many other things.

It's pretty Goddamned obvious that the only party even trying to be fiscally responsible is the Republicans lately. We simply CANNOT afford to give $7,000+ dollars of money we DO NOT HAVE so people can buy a luxury item. Yes, sorry folks, but the Volt is a LUXURY at this point. If you can afford a $40,000 vehicle, you sure as HELL don't need help from the taxpayers!!

It's time to stop this petty partisan bickering and at least come to grips with the reality of the situation we're in. This isn't Health Care or military spending or unemployment insurance. This is a CAR. The Government has absolutely NO business trying to sway the market in favor of one technology over the other, using funds that don't really exist because it's debt from the Treasury, so people that don't even need financial assistance can buy a goddamn car.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Spuke on 12/1/2011 5:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rate you up more, if I could. At this point, it's irresponsible to be handing out money like this. If you didn't have a massive debt, then maybe but not now. We have more important things to take care of.


RE: A Republican in the House
By sigmatau on 12/1/2011 6:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
We have to continue to fund new technologies or we are doomed to go backward. We need to try to continue to be a leader or will end up being a follower.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Spuke on 12/1/2011 6:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have to continue to fund new technologies or we are doomed to go backward.
You mean follow us into bankruptcy like Greece? Where half a continent has to bail us out with no guarantees that we won't go under anyways? No thanks. Use the money to pay off debt. We can do this stuff later. No wonder we're in this hole.


RE: A Republican in the House
By sigmatau on 12/1/2011 6:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Sure Republicans care about more than giving the rich as much money as possible at the expense of everyone else. Below is a list of what I see as their priorities from what they say and how they vote.

1. Voting against anything that would make President Obama look good.
2. Reducing the taxes on the rich at the expense of others
3. Reducing the taxes on corporations at the expense of everyone but the rich.
4. No same-sex marriage.
5. Taking away women's rights (abortion) to suit their narrow minded religious views.
6. Making sure our homosexual soldiers don't have the same rights as heterosexual soldiers
7. Repealing "Obamacare" with NO replacement bill all the while defending Medicare which is basically the same thing
8. Reducing any services for the poor and middle class to pay for tax breaks for the rich
9. Reducing any services for the poor and middle class to pay for tax breaks for very profitable corporations.
10. Talk about spending cuts but at the same time give unrealistic and unfair ways to get them (no tax increases for the rich but they are more than fine about reducing services for the poor)

Oh, and a Republican can say all they want about being "fiscally responsible" but until they agree to allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, they might as well be talking about unicorns and fairies. The Democrats have put many spending cuts on the table, even those that may hurt the poor and middle class to try to be fair and meet the Republicans half way. Too bad that the Republicans spit on the Democrats when they did reach out to them.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Nfarce on 12/1/11, Rating: 0
RE: A Republican in the House
By Nfarce on 12/1/2011 8:32:15 PM , Rating: 2
Correction to #3: highest in the world .

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...


RE: A Republican in the House
By sigmatau on 12/1/2011 9:08:14 PM , Rating: 3
At least I don't call part of my party TEA BAGGERS and not know what it means.

That makes me think of most of Republican ideas. They come up stuff without thinking past what a 2nd grader would come up with.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Schrag4 on 12/1/2011 9:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least I don't call part of my party TEA BAGGERS and not know what it means.


Uh, that term was started by people like you to make fun of the Tea Party because you don't like true debate. Do you even know why they call it the Tea Party?


RE: A Republican in the House
By room200 on 12/2/2011 7:27:31 AM , Rating: 2
RE: A Republican in the House
By sigmatau on 12/1/11, Rating: 0
RE: A Republican in the House
By Nfarce on 12/2/2011 8:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah and you really took me to task, didn't ya mouth breathing libtard?


RE: A Republican in the House
By sigmatau on 12/3/2011 1:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry I don't respond to asswipes that can't speak coherently with a debate.


RE: A Republican in the House
By room200 on 12/2/2011 7:25:54 AM , Rating: 2
1) Democrats did the same to Bush.
Really, take a look at how many times the filibuster was used to block things that even included things rebublicans agreed with in the past.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-m...

2) The "rich" pay 70% of all the taxes (that's the top 25% for you Obama voters). The bottom 50% of income earners pay ZERO .

Another lie. Poor people pay less in payroll taxes because they has less pay. Makes sense. However, they pay the same amount in other taxes as anyone else.

3) Corporate America's taxes are amongst the highest in the nation. And they do get tax breaks for things like offering non-Constitutionally mandated benefits like maternity leave, continuing education, health care plans, life insurance plans, worker's comp, and retirement plans (ie: they don't HAVE to offer those benefits).

And they have been dropping for 30 years.

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/compa...

Oh, name ONE spending cut Democrats put on the table in the last head-to-head. ONE! Please include the fact that Harry Reid's Senate run by Democrats haven't passed one single budget in THREE YEARS.

Here you go:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/10/26/dem...

You really should start trying to listen to other people instead of all the juvenile name-calling. But that's why nothing is getting done; your personality is typical of the nastiness of your kind.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Nfarce on 12/2/2011 8:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really, take a look at how many times the filibuster was used to block things that even included things rebublicans agreed with in the past.


With Democrats forcing the GOP into them of course:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/200...

quote:
Poor people pay less in payroll taxes because they has less pay.


The typical response of you liberal Dems. Payroll taxes are not IRS income taxes. They are taxes for future BENEFITS (most of which are about broke like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid). And the other consumption-based taxes like gas taxes, food taxes, booze taxes, cigarette taxes are irrelevant when talking about "tax breaks for the rich" that you people keep bringing up.

We get tax breaks from the IRS, not the local gas station and liquor store. If you find it unfair that a higher % of someone's payroll tax with 6% of income going to SS is unfair, then lobby your representatives to introduce a bill lowering that rate based on income. Ditto for all the other consumption-based taxes.

quote:
And they have been dropping for 30 years.


Not as a percentage of GDP:

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-reve...

My bad on the spending "cuts" when I meant to say spending "caps" brought to the budget table. Everyone knows the $400B over ten years offer (with a $15 trillion deficit hit last month, BFD).

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/non-defense-discre...


RE: A Republican in the House
By Nfarce on 12/2/2011 8:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
And another thing: I was way off on my % of income earners to % of income taxes paid. The top 10% pay 70% whereas the top 25% pay 88%:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#ta...

Guess who gets tax cuts from the IRS? Those who pay them. Anything less is income redistribution. But you liberals love that, so it's a moot point I suppose.


RE: A Republican in the House
By mufdvr3669 on 12/2/2011 11:02:27 AM , Rating: 2
top 20% of income earners own 85% of the wealth in America. So the fact that they pay 88% of income taxes seems fair. But they do not pay 88% of all taxes which is unfair. I'm easily one of them in the top bracket. I don't whine and moan because I know I have it better than most.


RE: A Republican in the House
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 11:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
The Tax Foundation reports AGI numbers, not actual taxable amounts. Schedule A is on page 2, AGI is on the bottom pf page 1, and the taxable amount occurs after subtracting the amount on the bottom of Schedule A. Now why do they do that? Because the truth would hurt their claims?

Now take a look at the "Tax Foundation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation

The Board of Director's is a who's who of rich elite.

Of course they always overlook the individuals who have the largest numbers on Schedule D and where the tax tables get adjust downward accordingly. And who has the largest numbers on Schedule D? Would just happen to be the rich? You tell us.

quote:
The Tax Foundation's annual study that calculate Tax Freedom Days in the United States has been criticized by other think tanks, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)[25] and Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ),[26] citing repeated "methodological errors" and "reliance on early projections without hard data." CBPP has also criticized other reports by the Tax Foundation,[27][28][29][30][31] and in turn the Tax Foundation has responded or criticized CBPP reports.[32][33][34][35][36] The two groups have some areas of agreement, such as opposition to most tax expenditures[37] and sales tax holidays.


quote:
In 2008, Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times blog that the Tax Foundation was "not a reliable source" in response to a report by the Tax Foundation comparing corporate tax rates in the United States to those in other countries.[40] In 2011, Krugman accused the Tax Foundation of "deliberate fraud" in connection with a report it issued concerning the American Jobs Act.


A "think tank" is double speak for a propaganda outfit, regardless of party. But hey the emperor's loyal subject continue to insist they see his new clothes.


RE: A Republican in the House
By room200 on 12/2/2011 8:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
With Democrats forcing the GOP into them of course:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/200...

Typical of someone like you; I point out hard facts and straight numbers to you. What do you respond with ? An opinion piece. LOL

The typical response of you liberal Dems. Payroll taxes are not IRS income taxes. They are taxes for future BENEFITS (most of which are about broke like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid). And the other consumption-based taxes like gas taxes, food taxes, booze taxes, cigarette taxes are irrelevant when talking about "tax breaks for the rich" that you people keep bringing up.

What the hell are you talking about? Payroll taxes are simply those taxes that employers are required to withhold; this includes income taxes. Funny NOW how republicans are trying to block tax cuts for middle class workers.

Not as a percentage of GDP:

Irrelevant. We're talking about tax RATES and you know it. This is typical people like you to pull nonsense from you @ss when you can't refute the point, itself. If I own a company, I don't care how my tax rate relates to GDP; all I care about is the rate at which I'm being taxed.


RE: A Republican in the House
By TSS on 12/1/2011 8:28:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's pretty Goddamned obvious that the only party even trying to be fiscally responsible is the Republicans lately.


I agree with everything in your post, except this. And extremely so. I'm not talking about general republican voters, but the republican representatives in the house and senate. In the past 2 years they've shown so little responsibility they actually got america's credit rating downgraded! that was as much a republican failure as it was a democratic failure.

Have you seen tea party economic proposals? Draconian cuts to >discretionary< spending, but no cuts what so ever to mandatory spending. So they leave social security alone just as much as the democrats, but they will completly gut education to keep up their image of "fiscal responsibility" as well.

Not that the general republican proposals make any sense. Taxes for EVERYBODY are the lowest they've been in 80+ years, and they refuse to raise taxes? You call that responsible?

The republican party does only care for the rich, or else cares only about doing the opposite of what democrats do. And the democrats only care about the poor or else doing the opposite of what republicans do. That's why i've been saying for years you guys need to vote on a 3rd party. En masse.

If you truely are a republican, how can you vote for such irreponsible people instead of voting on somebody else or even creating your own party that actually upholds republican values? Don't tell me you vote simply because your republican and they are called republicans. Else i'll call myself god and order you to vote a 3rd party :p


RE: A Republican in the House
By Reclaimer77 on 12/1/2011 8:43:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In the past 2 years they've shown so little responsibility they actually got america's credit rating downgraded! that was as much a republican failure as it was a democratic failure.


It REALLY pisses me off that the media and the Democrats blamed the Republicans for that. First of all, we NEVER lost our credit rating until Obama and the Democrats came along and took power. Let's not forget that.

Secondly the S&P very clearly stated that unless the United States made, and I quote, "substantial" cuts in spending and debt, they WOULD downgrade our credit.

So what happened? Both sides came to the table and the Democrats, predictably, refused to cut enough spending to satisfy the S&P.

I don't know where you get your news, but how dare you blame the Republicans for the TRILLIONS Obama and the Democrats ran up leading up to our credit downgrade, when the Republicans did not even have the votes to fight it.

quote:
Not that the general republican proposals make any sense. Taxes for EVERYBODY are the lowest they've been in 80+ years, and they refuse to raise taxes? You call that responsible?


How is giving more tax revenue to a Government that has proven, without a doubt, that it WILL mismanage that money fiscally responsible? Do you even know what our deficit is? It's literally IMPOSSIBLE to tax our way out of it.


RE: A Republican in the House
By Reclaimer77 on 12/1/2011 8:49:52 PM , Rating: 1
I mean holy shit, REALLY? The Democrats fought to RAISE the debt ceiling (great job, more debt is what we need!) even after being warned by the S&P, and you're blaming the Republicans??


RE: A Republican in the House
By sigmatau on 12/1/2011 9:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wait a second. I know you are completely insane now.

You actually think people are stupid enough to follow your asinine twisted comment?

The Democrats agreed to spending cuts that included services for the poor, old and sick. The Republicans just out right refused to increase revenue (taxes) without any compromise. In Bizzaro world, you would be right: even though ONLY the Democrats tried to compromise, somehow you think the Republicans are the ones in good light.

Talk about idiotic insanity!


RE: A Republican in the House
By Reclaimer77 on 12/1/2011 9:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
You're one confused person. Tax policy was NOT on the table, the debt ceiling was. Hello? The Democrats actually wanted to be able to borrow MORE money! They only agreed to some cuts in exchange for an increase to an already astronomical debt ceiling. You call that compromise?!?

In what insane context does this somehow make the Republicans the evil party when they're trying to reign in this spending fever that the Obama administration has saddled us with?

You can spin it all you want, we lost our credit rating because of Democrats. Plain and simple!

"The downgrade from S&P has been brewing for months. S&P's sovereign debt team, led by company veteran David T. Beers, had grown increasingly skeptical that Washington policy makers would make significant progress in reducing the deficit, given the tortured talks over raising the debt ceiling. In recent warnings, the company said Washington should strive to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, suggesting anything less would be insufficient. "


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240531119033...

There! How much more black and white can it get?


RE: A Republican in the House
By room200 on 12/2/2011 7:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
Debt ceiling being raised should not have even been a question. this is not new spending. It's only agreeing to pay for the bills that we ALREADY owe. It's not optional. Why would there even be a question as to whether or not we would pay our bills?


RE: A Republican in the House
By Reclaimer77 on 12/2/2011 7:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
In other words it's allowing the status-quo to continue! Hello? And you're wrong, raising the debt ceiling absolutely could lead to more debt.

But did losing our credit rating and facing a looming collapse give the Democrats a reality check? Nope. Time to blame Republicans and get back to business as usual.


RE: A Republican in the House
By mufdvr3669 on 12/2/2011 11:06:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can spin it all you want, we lost our credit rating because of Democrats. Plain and simple!


Since you are so good at googling you may actually want to find out who is responsible for most of the debt. Pretty sure it wasn't under Democrats watch.


RE: A Republican in the House
By mufdvr3669 on 12/2/2011 11:14:03 AM , Rating: 1
"
It REALLY pisses me off that the media and the Democrats blamed the Republicans for that. First of all, we NEVER lost our credit rating until Obama and the Democrats came along and took power. Let's not forget that."

Using that logic we never got attacked until Bush came along. Republicans therefore are bad in our fight on terrorism. </badlogic>


RE: A Republican in the House
By YashBudini on 12/2/2011 11:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It REALLY pisses me off that the media and the Democrats blamed the Republicans for that. First of all, we NEVER lost our credit rating until Obama and the Democrats came along and took power. Let's not forget that.

As soon as you admit that 9/11 happened under W.

Like either event was born and completed under any one single administration. And you call this logic?


RE: A Republican in the House
By room200 on 12/2/2011 7:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree; the democrats and the republicans almost never even MENTION the poor.


RE: A Republican in the House
By room200 on 12/2/2011 7:06:02 AM , Rating: 2
Bull. The republicans are no more "fiscally responsible" than anyone else. They are select in who they want to hand out the government cash to. They are also hypocrites. Just weeks ago, they all were on television talking about whenever you have tax cuts, they don't have to be paid for. The problem is, that's when they are talking about taxes for rich people. Now that Obama is trying to extend tax cuts for working people, they now state we will support it only if it's paid for. Really?


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














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