backtop


Print 151 comment(s) - last by chagrinnin.. on Apr 4 at 6:36 PM


President Barack Obama announces his plan to deliver $2.4B USD in stimulus money to the electric vehicle industry, a boost struggling domestic automakers like GM.  (Source: PhysOrg)
The federal government is picking electric cars as the winning technology of the future

GM has high hopes riding on the Chevy Volt, its flagship-vehicle-to-be.  Its American competitors -- Chrysler and Ford -- have both stated plans to aggressively pursue the development of electric vehicles.  Together, they send a clear message -- electric vehicle technology appears to be the future of the automotive industry in the U.S.

President Barack Obama and the federal government agree.  President Obama, speaking at an Edison Electric Vehicle Technical Center in Pomona, California, announced plans for a $2.4B USD infusion into the domestic electric vehicle industry.  He stated, "We can let the jobs of tomorrow be created abroad or we can create them here in America and lay the foundation for lasting prosperity."

He considers electric vehicles a critical component to eliminating American reliance on oil from unstable foreign sources like the Middle East.  He states, "The nation that leads on energy will be the nation that leads the world in the 21st century.  That's why, around the world, nations are racing to lead in these industries of the future."

He says that the investment in the auto industry will yield tens of thousands of jobs and new technology.  Battery technology is one critical area of improvement targeted by the plan.  In addition, the plan would give a $7,500 tax credit to anyone purchasing a plug-in hybrid vehicle.  President Obama says the plan will help America reach the goal of having a million electric cars on the road by 2015.

While the U.S. leads the world in wind power, President Obama reinforced that the U.S. needs to continue to seize alternative energy leadership.  He states, "Germany is leading the world in solar power. Spain generates almost 30 percent of its power by harnessing the wind, while we manage less than one percent and Japan is producing the batteries that currently power American hybrid cars."

The latter criticism is certainly true -- both of the competitors of GM's Chevy Volt battery contract produce their cells in Asia, and the majority of the cells that go into mild hybrids are produced and developed in Japan, China, or South Korea, as well.  The federal and state governments here in the U.S. hope that new funding will help change this, bring battery cell production and development back into the U.S.

The new funding for electric vehicles will be divided between the automakers and the parts suppliers.  The automakers will receive $1.5B USD, while parts makers who are building electronic vehicle components will get $500M USD.  The remaining $400M USD will be devoted to research and building infrastructure.   Both electric vehicle repair centers and community charging stations are targets for this funding.

The funds will be drawn from the $787B USD economic stimulus law.



Comments     Threshold


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

why no money for nuclear power?
By Bubbacub on 3/20/2009 11:05:28 AM , Rating: 5
if Obama is serious about reducing dependency on foreign fossil fuels then nuclear power is the only cost efficient technology that we have. wind and wave power is very nice and keeps the green tree huggy types happy - but any widespread implementation of wind or wave power may be prohibitively expensive and could possibly have a much larger ecological footprint than an equivalent sized nuclear power station built even with 1960's tech.

p.s. i realise that evangelical green people rarely have logical coherent reasons for their arguments. most of their policies are made up on "gut instinct" with some BS science then dredged up to support a particular position




RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Bubbacub on 3/20/2009 11:12:42 AM , Rating: 2
p.s. i know i'm not stricltly on topic


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By BZDTemp on 3/20/2009 11:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
It happens :-)

I think the pro and cons discussions with regard to Nuclear vs. Wind/solar/water... tends to leave out that the supply of Uran needed to run the plants is not limitless. Plus both parties tend to forget what it takes to make the plants/windmills and so forth which of course must include what it takes to dig out the uran and "refine" it (that is no small matter).

What's your take on those matters?


By BladeVenom on 3/20/2009 11:54:32 AM , Rating: 5
Thorium reactors and breeder reactors.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 12:08:23 PM , Rating: 5
Limitless, no, but it will buy us the time needed to perfect the other methods.

It also costs time/resources to mine and refine silica for solar or steel/copper... for wind. Not sure where you are going here, but it would be a stretch to even come close to nuclear's cost per megawatt compared to solar/wind at it's current stage of development. Even with the refinement costs.

I don't think the pro-nuclear argument is that it is the end-all-be-all answer, but if you are looking for a quick, clean, cheap solution that also puts people to work then this is by far the best solution. And if you look at cost/mw, then there really is no competition.

Compromises must be made we just do not have the technology right now to provide endless free energy. So something has to give, and we should pick the "best" option. Currently that option is fossil fuels, but if you want cleaner the next is obviously nuclear. Again not perfect but better as a stop gap until perfect can be attained.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Pryde on 3/20/2009 9:38:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Compromises must be made


Couldn't agree more. Nuclear Reactors have been proven safe for over 50 years with Chernobyl being a exception.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Flunk on 3/21/2009 1:20:58 PM , Rating: 5
Chernobyl was massively mismanaged, with the right safeguards in place it wouldn't have happened.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By phxfreddy on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 7:00:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Chernobyl is what you get when the socialists are in charge....oooops..... The Obama is in charge. We may want to delay reactor starts till 2012.


Way to find a way to dig at Obama. Chernobyl happened because of bad planning and extremely bad safety practices.

Only the stupidest guy in the world can be trained in how to operate a nuclear plant then remove ALL the control rods from the reactor core. Don't worry though, equipment operators without a clue operate dangerous plants all around the world. Trust me, I work in Emergency shutdown system installation.

quote:
But then by that time he will have melted the economy down. A trillion here a trillion there sprinkled like cupcake decorations. This guy has no clue in the money management area.


Then who the hell would you suggest was better? Bush? Mccain?

Face it, you got the guy with the most financial sense out of a bunch of people that don't really know. He is also far better than your last idiot, who created this mess. I love the way it's all Obamas fault all of a sudden. Just like you anti-obamites blamed Bush for 9/11... no wait you blamed the previous president, Clinton, didn't you.. because it's NEVER EVER your guys fault.

do you think it was wise for Bushco to stop publishing M3 statistics in 2006? Do you think that may have contributed to a general ignorance of the money supply conditions and the inflation level?

Do you know what M3 statistics are? if not then stop talking economics, all you are doing is looking for a way to bash your 'other guy' president.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By RandallMoore on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
By RandallMoore on 3/23/2009 3:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
uh oh... Common sense comments are starting to be down rated... looks like the liberals are logging in at DT.


By callmeroy on 3/25/2009 11:27:41 AM , Rating: 2
Who cares the truth is the truth -- give credit where its due and take a dig at someone when its worthy and justified.

Beyond that little rule -- I couldn't possibly care any less what party a politician is affliated with.

Anyways....I didn't care much for Bush, didn't care much for Clinton and don't care much for Obama now (so far - he's presidency is very young still). Yet I did find some things or at least qualities in each of those presidents that I did agree with.

The problem with the presidency is its an on-going office , so if you are president you know you will be blamed for past administration blunders...regardless if you are doing a flawless job or not -- it comes with the territory, like wise folks will blame YOU years after you end your presidency for CURRENT situations in the country. There's foks that still blame Reagan for crying out loud for some issues and its what over 20 years later?

Its part of the deal when you accept office.

The one thing I will say with Clinton on the 9/11 thing...indirectly he may have been responsible for it. According to the former head of the Iraqi Situations desk in the CIA (Micheal Scherer - though my spelling may be off) he stated in his book that during Clinton's office -- US military forces literally had Osama in their cross hairs but when they requested authority to fire, the white house told them to stand down. That was our golden chance to kill Osama, we didn't take it. The reason for the stand down was fear of both political repercussions at the time (think nearing the head of the original gulf war) and if the shot missed it could have killed the wrong target -- since Osama was meeting with some prince or other high government official (I forget the details of his meeting) the chance of killing that official instead of Osama was one we didn't want to risk at the time.


By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 6:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
Windscale/Sellafield

Not a reactor, but still part of the process.

Bottom line is though that accidents happen and the impact of any nuclear accident now, given the things in place, will not produce a major problem unless it's something done deliberately.

lets not forget, in this discussion chaps, that nuclear FUSION is still the holy grail;)


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By smackababy on 3/20/2009 11:14:58 AM , Rating: 4
Nuclear power has a big start up cost and people are still afraid of meltdowns. It is sad all the negative vibes people get from it.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 11:54:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Nuclear power has a big start up cost and people are still afraid of meltdowns.


It is sad, and the reason for the high costs are the outdated laws that have been added to make it nearly impossible to actually build one. If you could get a reasonable permit and just build one, I would argue the actual cost is going to be far less than solar for sure, and possible wind. Definitely less than solar or wind that would generate the same MWH.

It's not a perfect solution, but it does buy us a few thousand years of relatively clean energy so we can perfect alternative methods. ZPM's for everyone.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Pryde on 3/20/2009 9:29:53 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is Nuclear Reactors have never been built on a large scale and combined with all the red tape/lawsuits that has extended the projects by 2-7 years and completely stopping some. A lot of the cost of a nuclear reactor is not just in the construction and a lot of the greenies like to include this in their cost arguments.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Flunk on 3/21/2009 1:23:42 PM , Rating: 4
Nuclear reactors have been built on large scale, just not in the US. Canada, Japan and many European countries have significant percentages of their energy mix from nuclear.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Pryde on 3/23/2009 12:31:10 AM , Rating: 1
Nuclear reactors have never been produce on such a large scale that the R&D, planning etc is a very small part of the actual costs.

Take F22 for example has a huge development cost. In April 2006, the cost of the F-22 was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft. The Unit Procurement Cost was estimated at $177.6 million in 2006 based on a production run of 181 airframes. By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one additional F-22 is around $138 million, decreasing with larger volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases. The DoD purchased 60 additional Aircraft in 1 contract instead of 3 20 Aircraft contracts over years 3 and saved over $400m.

While each Nuclear Reactor is unique in its location and costs could vary a lot, the actual cost of building a Nuclear Reactor could drop dramatically making it a even better alternative.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Chudilo on 3/23/2009 10:03:21 AM , Rating: 1
If you think nuclear power is so great and safe, would you live and raise your children in direct view of a nuclear plant, or within a few miles of one. I didn't think so.

That would make you a major hippocrat , wouldn't it?


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By DukeN on 3/20/2009 11:21:14 AM , Rating: 2
Well here's a question from someone not familiar with the ins and outs of nuclear power.
How is radioactive waste, or waste from these plants disposed? Better question perhaps would be what type of waste is typically generated here?


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 11:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
My understanding is that now the waste is refined (or condensed for lack of a better word) further back into usable fuel again.

Now at some point I'm sure there will still be waste, however considering we have been doing it for 50 years, and the "vast" amounts of waste are such a huge problem, they are for the most part still stored onsite.

OK that was sarcasm, but you get my point 50 years worth of waste has not amounted to enough to justify a dedicated facility (one is in the works but we are certainly not in dire need of it). The plant itself stores it in a big pool of water. Keep in mind also that most of this "waste" has not been recycled back into fuel yet either since it is most likely more cost effective to mine new ore than refine it.

I'm certainly not an expert, but that is my understanding.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By MozeeToby on 3/20/2009 5:16:43 PM , Rating: 4
In the US at least, this isn't true (it's what should be done, but isn't what takes place). We know it works because it's been done successfully and economically by other countries (France in particular). The problem is reprocessing the waste produces a fuel that works well in reactors but could also be used for low yield nuclear weapons; due to the (perceived) risk of someone getting their hands on weapons grade nuclear material the US does not allow reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

The reason that we don't have a centralized, long term storage solution isn't because it isn't needed, it's because of NIMBY ('not in my back yard') combined with the fact that no one really knows how to store something for the 50,000 years it will take for the waste to be relatively safe.

Stop and think about that for a second. 50,000 years. 50,000 years ago, the pinnacle of human achievement was fire and a stone axe head. We simply don't know what will change in that amount of time. On those time scales climates can change dramatically, rivers can change their courses, continents will drift up to 5 kilometers.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue nuclear power (on the contrary, I think it will be key to our long term power needs) but you can't just go around saying waste isn't a problem.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Spuke on 3/20/2009 6:01:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but you can't just go around saying waste isn't a problem.
Just because we choose to take the stupid route doesn't mean that waste is a problem. Because it's still not a problem.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By sinful on 3/20/2009 10:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you can't just go around saying waste isn't a problem.


In 1894, they were worried about waste too - from horses.
In fact, there were predictions that horse manure would pile up 9 feet high in London due to the massive volume of waste from horses. No kidding.

Fortunately, that waste problem was resolved.
It didn't take 50,000 years, either.

If the past holds true, we could expect a technological solution to the nuclear waste issue too. Who knows, maybe vast amounts of cheap energy provided by nuclear power might lead to a solution for its own waste - perhaps deep core mining, for example, where you just dump the waste back into the deep earth, or a space-based solution.

Secondly, the quantity of waste is certainly a factor too. If a reactor can run 100 years and only produce a barrel of radiocative sludge, it's not a huge issue...


By BansheeX on 3/21/2009 1:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Stop and think about that for a second. 50,000 years. 50,000 years ago, the pinnacle of human achievement was fire and a stone axe head. We simply don't know what will change in that amount of time. On those time scales climates can change dramatically, rivers can change their courses, continents will drift up to 5 kilometers.


The ability to jettison waste material into the sun or further render it into harmless pulp will come well before you have to worry about geological changes. It was only 100 years ago that we invented airplanes, 30 that we invented personal computers. What we'll be capable of in 1000 years if we get our sh** together is unimaginable.


By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 7:06:40 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that the vaste quantity of 'nuclear waste' is harmless.

If an operator, in the canteen across the plant from the reactor drinks a coffee. That spent plastic cup is nuclear waste.

The amount of actual, real, nuclear waste is very small. This can be reprocessed into other isotopes usable again as nuclear fuel, but the process is not indefinite. You still end up with dirty isotopes of caesium and whatnot.

Personally, I think that real dirty waste should be blasted off to the sun;) Obviously you'd need to fly it up in something that would survive a catastrophic failure of your spacecraft, however.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By TMV192 on 3/20/2009 12:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
Some people like to look at it by weight but carbon gas doesn't weight much, the low volume and contained nature of nuclear waste is far better than the volumes of carbon that just escapes into the air. Combined with the high power output, nuclear is still as much a smart choice for electricity as it was decades ago


By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 7:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some people like to look at it by weight but carbon gas doesn't weight much, the low volume and contained nature of nuclear waste is far better than the volumes of carbon that just escapes into the air. Combined with the high power output, nuclear is still as much a smart choice for electricity as it was decades ago


Carbon gas? I assume you mean carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is measured by weight because it is the only accurate way to measure the quantity of a gas as a single measure.

Don't forget that nuclear power stations have a huge carbon footprint from the process of mining and refining uranium. This is a very long and complicated process involving lots of nasty chemicals, such as hydroflouric acid. I think research can reduce this a lot though, but at the moment it still stands.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Wierdo on 3/20/2009 12:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
There's an article at arstechnica on this issue that covers some of this, and the bbs posts there on the issue of waste disposal and nuclear power reactor advancements were quite interesting...

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/nuclea...


By William Gaatjes on 3/21/2009 10:19:04 AM , Rating: 1
By William Gaatjes on 3/21/2009 10:19:04 AM , Rating: 1
By William Gaatjes on 3/21/2009 10:19:04 AM , Rating: 1
By William Gaatjes on 3/21/2009 10:49:34 AM , Rating: 1
Well some education can be found with these links.

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewforum.p...

The Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor :
The explanation is in the pdf. But even intelligent green people are pro-advocating for this technology.

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/04/benefits-...

a pdf with information :

http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_h...

The website :

http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimh...

And some links on other technology :

http://einstein.unh.edu/FWHersman/energy_amplifier...

http://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/Pruhonice/PDF/Radermach...

http://energy.nobelprize.org/reports/rubbia_report...

Basically the thorium which is not radioactive is turned into uranium 233 by use of a proton beam. When the protonbeam is turned off, the uranium 233 production stops and the entire reaction stops. This means that this reactor can also never explode and the regulation of output power is easier to control. At least in theory. But it's very expensive.

Don't be fooled, we have the technology, but green people with a hidden agenda to make money prevent the use of nuclear technology by making false statements. Chernobyl was a bad design from the start. With modern technology present and achievable today even bad maintenance and operator error's cannot make fission reactors go critical.

But basically we have the technology to use up between 90 and 96 percent of the nuclear fuel. This means very rare refuelling. We can use thorium which is abundant in the earth crust. Thorium itself is not radioactive but it can be made using current available technology. The radio active waste with the state of the art tech we have would be like a dump truck a year. But we also have the technology to transmutate radioactive material in less radio active material.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Parhel on 3/20/2009 11:35:20 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, but both are needed. Imagine if we combined electric cars with cheap, plentiful, reliable nuclear power. We might really be able to achieve energy independence in the foreseeable future.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Tsuwamono on 3/20/2009 11:48:06 AM , Rating: 3
Excellent point. But we still need to research wind and water and solar. We are making advancements in the efficiencies of these technologies that will be required to end our dependency on the radioactive type of power generation.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Fenixgoon on 3/20/2009 11:59:49 AM , Rating: 5
a researching wind and solar technologies will undoubtedly pay off in our future energy policy. for the present, however, i still think nuclear is the way to go until wind and solar can become competitive, especially considering the fact that a nuclear facility will be able to run 24 hours per day. a solar plant cannot.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Tsuwamono on 3/20/2009 12:32:20 PM , Rating: 3
Basicly my same point. Eventually we will not want to have ANY waste in our energy and at that point we will want to move away from nuclear, but for now nuclear in my opinion is the best option in combination with hydro and wind and supplemental solar.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Pryde on 3/20/2009 9:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
We will always have waste, Wind Turbines do not last forever, Solar Panels do not last forever. Yes we can recycle most of the parts but not ALL.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By TSS on 3/21/2009 10:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
Can we say, "Fusion"?

we don't have to look for a clean reliable power source that will power us forever, that will be fusion. we just need something to keep us running untill we can get fusion technology up and working reliably.

and that would be nuclear.

funny thing is though, if you want to be energy independant from all other nations, build more coal plants. while uranium is mined mostly by canada and australia (soon though, kazachstan), the US has massive, massive coal reserves. enough to meet current demand for the next 250 years! (even longer then the estimated uranium deposits)

that just doesn't sit too well with the hippies. even though even at this moment, like 60% of all US energy is already produced *by coal*. even nuclear doesn't go above 20% with all the reactors still working.


By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 7:15:38 AM , Rating: 2
Solar and wind have one good advantage over all other sources though and that is localised power provision.

With a big plant you have all your eggs in one basket and some kind of failure with that plant, or with it's power lines will give you big brownouts.

But with a distributed network of small scale renewable sources, you gain a level of fail-redundancy which wil turn out to be very useful in certain times (usually bad times).

Imagine if in the days after hurricane katrina hit, every 5th surviving house bolted back up it's solar panels and starting squirting power back into the local grid. Suddenly you can run heaters, coolers, pumps... whatever you need.

You'd be rude to run your electric cooker tho ;)

As for mining uranium in Kazakhstan... I worked there 3 years on an oil plant (Tengiz SGP/SGI). You can see the radiation scars on a number of the locals there, loads of giant freckles all over the skin. That is from where the russians used to test nuclear weapons in the area. Some buildings near the habitation complex (we were in the middle of nowhere) were off limits because they were too radioactive!.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By The0ne on 3/20/2009 1:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the only problem I have with bhiebs comments is just this. If we don't put in the time, effort and investment into alternatives it'll take a very long time, which it has already due to lack on interest, for anything new to surface.

Sure we can have nuclear working and then work on the other alternatives but that's not usually how it works. You satisfy the need and there won't be enough support or funds for the alternatives. Money isn't infinite as well.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 2:06:40 PM , Rating: 1
That is true, and I'm all for R&D money. But subsidies are another story. When Solar and Wind can stand on their own there will be a place for them, until then keep the money on the R&D side.

No perfect solution though, it needs to be a mix. Problem is nuclear continues to be ignored instead of put in that mix.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By mattclary on 3/20/2009 12:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
Agree with you. Obama made the point that he wants to kill coal plants, so I wonder how he plans to power these electric cars?


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By MrBungle123 on 3/20/2009 1:37:01 PM , Rating: 4
What you have to understand is that the current crop of politicians we have now are not interested in finding any real solutions. Instead they are interested in furthering their own political ambitions. This is why every time they try to push agendas like the current "green" movement there are so many un-answered questions about how the new ideas can be implemented in a practical economically viable way.

This push for electric cars is being done under the guise of helping the environment and boosting the economy, with the long term benefit of weaning us off foreign oil. If they were actually serious about doing this, there would be enormous infrastructure projects going on to boost electrical production and upgrade the capacity of the power grid. Huge research projects to increase the efficiency of reactors and find better ways of reprocessing the waste so that as much energy could be extracted as possible from the spent fuel, and federal incentives for producing the batteries and battery technology necessary to make these things work.

Instead we get Obama reading from his trusty teleprompter and offering a tax credit for cars that don't exist yet and if adopted in mass would completely overwhelm our electrical distribution system.

Don't fall for this dribble.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Nfarce on 3/20/2009 5:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. One need look know further than the current crop of politicians, including President Obama himself, had no idea that Chris Dodd threw in an AIG bonus stipulation in that Stimulus Bill that was ramrodded through Congress. Obviously, nobody read the freaking thing and we are going to be stuck with the bill. What other surprising are we going to find lurking in there?

And to think these politicians with their bloated government bureaucratic world think they (and the people that voted for them) can to take over our health care and banks and be competent and efficient is unconditionally mind boggling.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By JoeOnRoute66 on 3/20/2009 12:35:58 PM , Rating: 4
First, the nuclear power industry hasn't ponied up enough money to Obama and the Democratic party. This is politics. Politics and sound sience do not mix. An example of this is the false global warming mantra that will slip the world into being ran by a few priviledged people.

Second, Obama will not support Yucca Mountain or any suitable place to put the stuff. Harry Reid, Nevada's senator, will never allow that final resting place for nuclear waste on his watch.

Nuclear power presents a great opportunity to produce power while minimizing impact on the environment. The US has done a poor job of addressing the entire value chain, from developing the radiological resources, recycling the material and its final disposal.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 12:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Harry Reid, Nevada's senator, will never allow that final resting place for nuclear waste on his watch.


He may accept any income to his state once Vegas completely dries up in this econ. They are really struggling right now, lots of cheap rooms.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By JonB on 3/20/2009 5:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
Harry Reid will retire from politics or die soon enough. Yucca Mountain will still be there, waiting to receive. Commercial nuclear plants will do what they've been doing; keeping spent nuclear fuel assemblies in their stainless steel swimming pools. When those fill up, the oldest assemblies can be put into dry storage casks and put in protected bunkers away from people. When Yucca Mountain does open (not if), then just move it.

The group really chomping at the bit for waste storage is Hospitals with their contaminated waste. They use a lot of radio-isotopes and you can't just put them in landfills.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Kary on 3/20/2009 5:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if Obama is serious about reducing dependency on foreign fossil fuels then nuclear power is the only cost efficient technology that we have


Well, one of our main use for foreign fossil fuels is powering vehicles...

Putting nuclear engines in vehicles seems a bit unsafe and expensive at this point...

Domestic coal produces most of our electrical power...

Maybe electric cars could be a serious contender for reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

(Don't get me wrong, if green house gases really are a worry then I think nuclear power plants are a good answer...but using nuclear reactors to end our dependence on foreign oil...not so much)


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Totally on 3/20/2009 7:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
Why non nuclear power? Easy because were not there yet. Let's get more of these cars on the road, before we start replacing EXISTING infrastructure.


RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By TETRONG on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: why no money for nuclear power?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/21/2009 8:26:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
if Obama is serious about reducing dependency on foreign fossil fuels then nuclear power is the only cost efficient technology that we have. wind and wave power is very nice and keeps the green tree huggy types happy - but any widespread implementation of wind or wave power may be prohibitively expensive and could possibly have a much larger ecological footprint than an equivalent sized nuclear power station built even with 1960's tech.


When has new technology and energy ever been prosperous under an extremely socialist government ?

Look at Obama's Cap and Trade proposal. It DIRECTLY taxes energy production at an absolute prohibitive rate. Under this absolute assault on abundant energy and prosperity, nobody will be able to afford building new reactors, drilling for oil, and tapping natural gas reserves.

When are you guys going to get it. He's a completely vapid talking head for the Democratic party. Pretty much anything that comes out of his mouth that actually sounds good and prudent, you can just file it away, because it's a lie.


By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 7:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When has new technology and energy ever been prosperous under an extremely socialist government ?


Absolutely loads of technology has, don't be an idiot.

Anything that ever came out of Europe was born under a far more socialist system than you have in place.

Are you going to tell me that no prosperous technology/energy has ever come out of Europe?

By the way, they are building the first production fusion reactor in France RIGHT NOW. It's a large internationally collaberative effort, but the majority of it's funding comes from Europe IIRC.

http://www.iter.org/


By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 6:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
Well I think this is a good idea, but the figure I would have chosen would have been more like $24bn, not $2.4bn.

As for nuclear power. you are both right and wrong. At the moment nuclear power has a very large carbon footprint across the plants lifecycle. With some $s put in the right place though I beleive this could be VASTLY reduced (that includes the use of electric vehicles).

Building a swathe of nuclear plants might give you cheap energy (in about 7 or 8 years) and building projects up until then. But this is another thing that will ony really materialise any significant benefit at all after a couple of years.

Trouble is we need results now.

By contrast, some of the other renweable technologies will provide benefit, albeit not a holy grail, very much sooner.


By jiminmpls on 3/23/2009 7:05:02 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, 23% of federal subsidies for electricity production goes to nuclear power.

Secondly, 92% of the fuel for civilian nuclear power plants is imported - 32% from Russia.

Thirdly, new nuclear power is prohibitively expensive and would take a decade before one new watt was generated. Anyone claiming that new nuclear power is either cheap or quick is either ignorant or lying.


By GreyHobbyHorse on 3/23/2009 9:10:28 AM , Rating: 2
You see, Obama doesn't want more electricity, he wants to ration and tax electricity. See his budget for details. It includes about a $200 a month tax for the average user.

Smart grid == Electricity rationing with a cute name.

As to electric cars, if they were actually viable, everyone would be driving one, now wouldn't they? Obama doesn't want you to be free to drive when and where you want, he wants you to do only what he says you can do.

If CO2 is your problem, you can either stop exhaling or build nuclear power plants. Nuclear Power -- Proven safe for 50 years. And why do you think Obama shut down Yucca mountain? Hey who needs power to run their economy, use windmills.


Unless
By Regs on 3/20/2009 11:00:24 AM , Rating: 3
It's a good start but we all know what the problem is.

Unless all those new jobs and employees plan to buy all the cars that they make, good luck. Though I imagine a guy making 20 an hour with no medical coverage w/ a 250k mortgage is going to afford a 30 thousand dollar electric car that has the performance of a beat up gas guzzler.

Maybe if the CEO's at AIG bought 10 at a time, but for now, the same people paying taxes to keep GM alive, are going to be the same people that have to choose to want to pay for the car that is likely going to be marked-up to hell and gone.




RE: Unless
By Stillone on 3/20/2009 11:16:55 AM , Rating: 1
I'd have to agree. Even with the tax break, I can see the corrupt auto industry marking up the cars $7,500 and then you can say good-bye to that tax break.

Still, most low to middle class americans can't afford the new cars with or without that tax break. IMO, the prices need to come down a lot for this to be adopted well by americans.

Maybe by 2015 if we are not in a complete depression and prices are, good with employment up, this will go well. I'm not holding my breath though.


RE: Unless
By Parhel on 3/20/2009 11:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
. . . I can see the corrupt auto industry marking up the cars $7,500 . . .


Well, they had better start doing something to start making money. A high markup on a product is better than a government bailout. At least in that case you can choose to not buy the car.


RE: Unless
By Tsuwamono on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Unless
By arsmitty86 on 3/20/2009 12:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't all the banks fault. The Clinton Administration Red-Lined the banks into sub-prime lending. It's a fact, look it up. And now our new Dumb-ass leader is doing the same damn things that got us here, to begin with. ARTIFICIALLY INFLATING THE ECONOMY IS ALWAYS A BAD THING. Here's a clue everyone... None of this has to do with the war, or Bush, or anything else. The Democratic party has this obscene idea that if we are in a recession then we are in trouble. Anybody that's ever studied economics at all will tell you that there is a natural rise and fall. What we are seeing now is a result of Clinton and his cronies in congress trying to repair the dot.com burst with a housing market bubble that was artificially created. If you screw with the economies natural order of things, It screws you back 10 fold.


RE: Unless
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 12:22:50 PM , Rating: 3
Although I agree with you that the free market should not be meddled with, the banks share in the blame.

They were encouraged via incentives to give the loans sure, but ultimately they did what all business tends to do, try and make money. They did not give the loans because they were forced to, rather they did an analysis and decided that the benefit outweighed the risks. Now the problem is that they completely miscalculated the risks, but don't fool yourself into thinking they did this because the government said so. They did it to make $$$ (and they made boat loads of it), but they were horribly wrong in their assumptions and lost their asses. Not letting them fail naturally was the mistake IMHO.

Pretty good article on one of the many things that went wrong.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_...


RE: Unless
By arsmitty86 on 3/20/2009 12:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that it had nothing to do with the banks at all. I understand that the bottom line is the bottom line. I'm simply saying that in all of these types of debates either bush or the banks take all of the blame and it's not accurate.


RE: Unless
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 12:39:28 PM , Rating: 1
True, but no one really mentioned Bush. In the end it really is all their fault. They did not have to give the loans they chose to. There were other options the most extreme of course would be to just close up shop, but they were not forced to in any way. SO it was all their fault that they made bad loans. The Gov may have guaranteed part of the loan, but ultimately it was still their call to lend.


RE: Unless
By Schrag4 on 3/20/2009 2:34:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In the end it really is all their fault. They did not have to give the loans they chose to.


Well, by that logic, nobody forced home-buyers to take these loans either. Just playing devil's advocate...


RE: Unless
By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 9:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah but you can always count on 'the people' being stupid.

Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

What you should be able to count on is your bank being honest with you and your financial position. After all, you went and asked them for advice because you are *not* one of the stupid ones and if this 'professional' says that this is A-OK then who are you - the financially ignorant - to question their judgement?


RE: Unless
By Schrag4 on 3/27/2009 9:34:50 AM , Rating: 2
I know it's really late to respond, but here goes.

Everyone that buys a house knows up-front how much their mortgage payments are going to be. There's no trickery going on at the banks. All they do is tell you how much it will cost. You have to be pretty dishonest with yourself to go ahead and agree to pay more each month than you know deep down that you can afford.

Generally speaking, I don't think it's anyone's job to make sure stupid people don't do stupid things. Yes, banks should not loan to people they know can't make the payments, but they should do it out of their own best interest, not the customer's. That being said, in this example, the banks and the customer theoretically should have the same interests at heart (neither one wants the customer to stop paying his or her mortgage).


RE: Unless
By chagrinnin on 4/4/2009 6:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah it is late but we're less likely to get rated down. :P

Agreed that the banks and homeowners are in a lose-lose situation.
Disagree with "no trickery" going on at the banks though.

Guys like Madoff and Stanford are more common than we'd like to think.


RE: Unless
By Spuke on 3/20/2009 6:08:38 PM , Rating: 4
RE: Unless
By jimbojimbo on 3/20/2009 2:42:57 PM , Rating: 3
They weren't just encouraged. Organizations like ACORN, which Obama worked for, actively took banks to court for not approving various sub-prime loans usually tossing in racism as being a reason. Banks didn't want the bad PR so surpise, one sub-prime load which then lead to tons more.


RE: Unless
By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 7:53:25 AM , Rating: 2
Why don't you quantify how much of a difference this actually made.


RE: Unless
By Regs on 3/25/2009 12:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
Your 401k is gone. =)


RE: Unless
By Keeir on 3/20/2009 4:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Although the banks do share part of the blame, I think it can't be overlooked that somewhere starting in the clinton admistration and extending into the bush adminstration, owning a home no longer was the american dream, but the american "right". Government organization originally created to stablize markets were used to promote social and political causes and a variety of new government programs created the illusion that success was "home ownership". The involvement and meddling into the housing market did not begin and end with regulations of banks... and these interventions were rarely good for the long term.

For example
"On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, a new program that provided grants to help home buyers with downpayment and closing costs. The act authorized $200 million dollars per year for the program for fiscal years 2004-2007."

Helping thouse who can't afford downpayment and closing costs on the surface seems like a reasonable thing to do... but in reality it allowed new entrants (increasing demand) into the market that were flush with "free" (government) money. The predictable outcome is that prices would rise (even if just slightly) and a number of risky loans would be created (after all, if you can't save the required downpayment in a reasonable time, how can you afford a loan?)...


RE: Unless
By shin0bi272 on 3/21/2009 8:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
The dept of housing and urban development set the percentage at which fannie and freddie (who hold over 40% of all mortgages in the us) had to give to low income mortgages at 46% back in 1995. that was subsequently raised in future years to 56% as of 2006. Those mortgage lenders were told not to worry about people going into foreclosure because the government would cover any loan that went into default so they kept lending as they were instructed to. When a mortgage lender is backed by the federal government banks are more than willing to give them money. When millions of people start defaulting on their mortgages and fannie and freddie cant make good on their promise to get the federal government to pay those mortgages off both the mortgage companies and the banks that lent them money are all out trillions of dollars. Couple that with mark to market accounting which says that essentially you have to devalue your securities (which is where all those mortgages went... into things called mortgage backed securities and sold on the stock market) when the market price of that security goes down you end up artificially deflating the cost of all those homes that people have defaulted on. So in the end home prices got devalued on the stock market, the mortgage interest rate adjusted out of the home owners price range so they couldnt pay, and the lenders who lent money on the false hope that the federal government would give them trillions of dollars to cover the 56% of their mortgages that were to low income families. There are lots of little intricacies involved but thats the overview of what happened. Government involvement of the stock market and the mortgage lending market coupled to cause the inflation and subsequent rapid deflation of those industries which just happened to include the banking industry and that hurt everyone else.

The problem in the long run is government involvement in any industry usually causes problems not solutions. In the words of Thomas Jefferson "I would rather suffer the problems stemming from too much liberty than not enough of it." In other words keep the government as small as it has to be in order to do its primary jobs.... keep us safe from insurrection and invasion with the DoD, and keep the national debt paid off. Instead of doing that both the republicans and democrats (but mostly the democrats), have grown government and increased taxes more often than not. We've had the progressive income tax for almost 100 years now and where has it gotten us? Is the national debt paid off? hell no its about to be 20 trillion dollars (10 year projection according to the congressional budget office). Are there still homeless? yep. Are there still poor? yep. Is the government too big to be effective? yep. I could continue but you get the point. We need to start looking at congress and voting out the big spenders and voting in people like Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin... People who believe that the constitution is the LIMIT of government not the beginning of it. If we keep electing people from the same parties we always do we only have ourselves to blame when they spend trillions of dollars the federal government doesnt have.


RE: Unless
By Wierdo on 3/20/2009 12:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
Lemme get this straight... it's all Clinton's fault, and "None of this has to do with the war, or Bush, or anything else" as you say, even though it's the war spending that has us at the highest spending deficit in US history even before the depression is factored in? I see allot of blame to go around here, I mean it would be nice it we didn't owe China so much money so that we could weather the depression of pre-Bush better now, instead we're stuck putting debt on top of debt.

Lets face it, politicians get there with the support of special interests, and they will naturally turn around and return that favor, Clinton took care of his financial chums and Bush made his war/oil industry buddies happy, it's the nature of our political process where the dollars are the votes.


RE: Unless
By Tsuwamono on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Unless
By MrBungle123 on 3/20/2009 1:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's all Clinton's fault, and "None of this has to do with the war, or Bush, or anything else" as you say, even though it's the war spending that has us at the highest spending deficit in US history even before the depression is factored in?


Under George Bush
2008 Federal Deficit: $410 Billion

Under Barack Obama
2009 Federal Deficit (projected): $1.8 Trillion

The "Stimulus" alone has cost us more than both the Iraq and Afganistan wars combined.


RE: Unless
By Hieyeck on 3/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: Unless
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 2:37:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Iraq and Afghan wars that Bush started


You mean Bush and all but what 3 democrats in Congress that voted to go as well. How quickly memory fades.

Now you can say they had bad intel. That would be fine for you and I as voters to be uneducated on what we vote yes for, but that does not apply to congress. They have to be held accountable for their votes, if the intel was sketchy they should have voted "no" or demanded better intel. Each member is wholely responsible for his/her vote, and the vast majority of them voted YES.


RE: Unless
By superkdogg on 3/20/2009 3:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
The intel is only as good as the leaders give you. The VP as the head of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are responsible for what the collective bodies are informed of (unless they sit on specific committees).

It's been widely reported that the executive branch skewed what was available to fit a certain point of view and then gave the [eventually inaccurate] information to Congress.

Just like the Stimulus wasn't passed by Obama, but rather by Congress based on the information and agenda presented by the executive branch, so went the conflict in the desert. Both were controversial and expensive and based on the leader's priorities and information provided to the legislators. Fact is that the bodies who develop the research are tightly tied to the executive branch and tend to present the information in the fashion that serves the executive branch-no matter which party is in charge.


RE: Unless
By Spuke on 3/20/2009 6:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
Congress does not need nor is required to depend on the Executive Branch for ANY type of information. They have the authority to go get that information themselves. The Iraq war was not dependent on one man, Bush, or one administration. To say that Congress, who's duty it is to be informed being OUR representatives, is a barn full of horsesh!t!!


RE: Unless
By superkdogg on 3/21/2009 3:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
Settle down, dude. I don't want you to have a stroke over this serious business.

Congress would only have had access to the reports as processed by the CIA/NSA, etc. that already had the data either incorrectly or dubiously interpreted. There was no counterpoint to be found versus what was presented, thus there was little valid reason to contradict the inaccurate actions and/or vote against the invasion that was to be protective and seeking the WMD's.

Trust me, the House Rep from New Hampshire cannot order up a la carte security reports from any federal agency-that's a committee responsibility and most committee chairs are appointed from the controlling party.


RE: Unless
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 6:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Trust me, the House Rep from New Hampshire cannot order up a la carte security reports from any federal agency
He sure as hell can do it. He has the authority to do so. And it's already been done before.

quote:
Congress would only have had access to the reports as processed by the CIA/NSA
What other reports would there be? If Congress has access to those reports (which they do) then they see the same stuff as the President and can act accordingly. The fact is that the vast majority voted for the war given the same information that the President and his administration had. There was no wool pulled over the eyes and no one's even claiming that they were fooled because they all knew.


RE: Unless
By MrBungle123 on 3/20/2009 2:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
of course Obama is going to have a huge defecit. Not only does he have to save the economy, he has to keep funding the Iraq and Afghan wars that Bush started.


The problem is his attempts to "save" the economy are nothing more than further escalation of the same policies and lack of fiscal responsibility that got us into this mess in the first place. The "simulative" actions by the administration have been nothing more than expansions of welfare programs and payoffs of campaign contributors. It is unfortunate that so much of the public is so politically uninformed that they see the name of the bill as the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" and think that it is actually designed in such a way to reflect its name.

On the war the terrorists were at war with us already Clinton all but ignored the attacks on America and Bush simply got us in the fight. Had Saddam complied with the 17 UN resolutions to allow inspectors into the suspected WMD housing/production facilities the Iraq war may never have started. If the only deficit spending was for the war it would be about 1/10 what it is now, so don't start blaming all this new debt on Bush just yet.


RE: Unless
By KCjoker on 3/20/2009 6:12:43 PM , Rating: 1
Bush started the Iraq war huh?......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8


RE: Unless
By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/2009 11:31:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bush started the Iraq war huh?...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8


Ownage. Pure concrete ownage.


RE: Unless
By jimbojimbo on 3/20/2009 2:47:41 PM , Rating: 2
I served two tours in Iraq and most people that seem to blame the current situation on the war are refusing to believe that when you say money goes into a war, it doesn't just vanish. It gets pumped back into the economy in the form of jobs, development, scientific research, and the spending surge that happens to every person that returns. Before the war you wouldn't see so many people in the military driving brand new Mustangs or Camaros or buying houses but now you do.


RE: Unless
By Nfarce on 3/20/2009 5:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure I understand your point. I grew up around one of the largest Air Force bases in the United States, and there was never a shortage of seeing jet jocks in their Corvettes and enlisted dudes in their IROC Z-28s :P . And that was in peace time or war time, before or after Gulf War I.


RE: Unless
By shin0bi272 on 3/21/2009 8:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly man when you fund a war it buys guns and bombs and tanks which are made in America (well usually). Which stimulates those businesses that are building those items and those people then go out and spend their paycheck on things like oh I dont know... homes, cars, tv's, food, electricity, computers... Trickle down economics works.


RE: Unless
By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 7:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Under George Bush
2008 Federal Deficit: $410 Billion

Under Barack Obama
2009 Federal Deficit (projected): $1.8 Trillion

The "Stimulus" alone has cost us more than both the Iraq and Afganistan wars combined.


Classic right wing disinformation. Conveniently omitting the fact that your figures for Obamas deficit include the Iraq and Afghan wars but the Bush figures do not. Nor do they include the bailout of fannie and freddie, plus the first stimulus he passed.


RE: Unless
By arsmitty86 on 3/20/2009 12:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's actually true. Chrysler marks their cars up an obscene amount because "they have to". Their not selling like they think they should so they mark them up in order to cover costs. If they built a decent vehicle for the money (and although some of their stuffs nice it's way overpriced) people would buy.


RE: Unless
By snownpaint on 3/20/2009 2:30:27 PM , Rating: 1
They have to jack up the prices.. They have to pay for the over-loaded Executive Employment Levels they have, Ridicules Union contracts for standard labor work, and the wasteful executive toys they own and maintain.. They are so top heavy in spending, no reason they are toppling over. How much of that car's cost goes to paying for the private jets? Right now, NONE "Joe Plumber" is paying for it..


RE: Unless
By Spuke on 3/20/2009 12:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can see the corrupt auto industry marking up the cars $7,500 and then you can say good-bye to that tax break.
Markups come from the dealerships not the manufacturers. This electric tech costs a ton of money to develop. Remember, they have to make these cars just as reliable, drivable, and as safe as the one's your currently driving. No small feat, not to mention there's virtually no infrastructure to support all electric vehicles. This costs TONS of money.

I know a couple of people here say they would give up some safety to reduce the costs but MILLIONS of people will absolutely not give it up. People will not buy a car that's not as safe as the one they're driving. I will even go out on a limb and say that people expect new cars to be even SAFER than the one's they're currently driving.


Mr Obama
By abitofgo on 3/20/2009 11:11:48 AM , Rating: 2
Has allocated ~13 USD from each person (between 20-65)(180 million people).





RE: Mr Obama
By superkdogg on 3/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Mr Obama
By arsmitty86 on 3/20/2009 12:07:45 PM , Rating: 1
Yes because the war drove up our fuel prices and it had nothing to do with the corrupt oil executives </sarcasm>

The war although it is a factor, didn't drive up fuel costs to where they were. It didn't kill the economy. It's a well known historical fact that wars actually help our economy. Someone has to make the equipment etc... God, everyone watches the damn news too much. The media is liberally biased.... It's only going to tell you what the democratic agenda wants you to hear. Fox news is right biased, their only going to tell you the republican agenda. That's why I don't watch the news and instead do my own research. OPEC is responsible for the oil hike, and whats worse is they played it off like it was hurricane Katrinas fault. They say their not "gouging" but for like the 5th year in a row they've shown record profits. On top of that stupid government red tape keeps companies from building new refineries easily which simply mucks things up worse.


RE: Mr Obama
By superkdogg on 3/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Mr Obama
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 12:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately our sliding scale tax system 95% of the tax is paid by the top 5% of the returns. So if my math is right.

180M / 5% = 9M
2.4B / 95% = 2.28B

9M ppl pay 2.28B ($253 each) while the other 171M ppl pay the other 1.2M ($.71) each. Sounds oddly socialist.


RE: Mr Obama
By Etsp on 3/20/2009 1:22:43 PM , Rating: 1
I'm pretty sure that the top 5% of the income bracket aren't being taxed 95% of their income. If that were the case, then this really would be socialism. Let's assume they are taxed 35% of their income (According to Wikipedia, that's the top tax bracket at this point in time...)

If they are taxed 35% of their income, and 35% of their income provides 95% of our tax income... then there is a significant divide between the top 5% and everyone else. That would mean that the top 5% have an income that is 20 times higher than the bottom 95% COMBINED. That's not per capita, that is total income.

I think it far more likely that your math is NOT right, and is based on the right-wing propaganda that our current tax system is socialist in nature, and part of that propaganda is "95% of the tax is paid by the top 5% of the returns."


RE: Mr Obama
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 1:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
I never said they were being taxed 95% rather that 95% of the tax budget is paid by the top 5% of the returns. Now that being said you are correct they still pay 35% vs a lower % for lower income. It is not entirely socialist, to be honest was just stirring things up. In fact just the oposite as it proves that a few truly wealthy really do have a large % of the total wealth. Now I don't think the higher rate is necessarily "fair" just becuase they have it, but I don't see where else to get it.

Going back to prev posts again it is never a "tax" problem but a spending problem. You cannot get money where there is none so of course you tax the rich more. I like to think of it as forced charity, with the worst money manager in history as the beneficiary (the US GOV regardless of who is in office).


RE: Mr Obama
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 2:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
Also I don't know the exact number, but it is fairly large % that the top x% pay. True the spin I gave it was conserv, but if anything it illustrates a wealth imbalance like you correctly said.

Me personally I'm all for a sales tax based system. Don't tax essentials so it helps the poor, but hit the douchebags hard when he buys his benz or bently.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

Has a good idea, but in this econ I don't know how a sales tax based system would work, since no one is buying and spending is increasing to help fix the recession.


RE: Mr Obama
By Nfarce on 3/20/2009 4:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also I don't know the exact number, but it is fairly large % that the top x% pay. True the spin I gave it was conserv, but if anything it illustrates a wealth imbalance like you correctly said.


For 2006 IRS returns:

The top 1% of income earners earned $390k and up and paid 40% of all federal income tax revenue taken in by US citizens; the top 5% earned between $153k and $390k and paid 60%; the top 10% earned between $109k and $153k and paid 72%; the top 25% earned between $65k and $109k and paid 87%; the bottom 50% of income earners, or those who earned below $32k in 2006, paid just 3% of all federal income tax taken in by the IRS from individuals, meaning that 50% pay a total of 97% of all that federal income tax revenue.

Yes, it's lopsided and VERY progressive, and becoming even more so with every passing administration (both Dem and Rep). What kills me is when people start whining about when tax cuts come around, they are only for the wealthy and upper class. Well DUH, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get any back. That would be income confiscation and redistribution of wealth ala Karl Marx if it happened large scale. And the whiners they have the audacity to say the "rich" don't pay ENOUGH taxes!


RE: Mr Obama
By Etsp on 3/20/2009 10:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
The rate they pay is very comparable to those of the lower classes. I was honestly surprised to hear that the max was 35%. But, it does show a great divide between the top 1% and the other 99% of taxpayers. I don't think that a redistribution of wealth would be even remotely a good thing, but it's also not a good thing when the rich get richer and the poor stay about the same.


RE: Mr Obama
By retrospooty on 3/21/2009 12:10:53 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, in spite of the aweful tax rates... You dont see a whole lot of rich people throwing in the towel on thier job/businesses so they can become poor and enjoy the lower tax rates.

All Obama is doing is repealing the Bush tax breaks and putting it back to the way it was under Clinton. Its not like anyone can prove it will lead to financial ruin... Quite the opposite - We were extremely prosperous under Clinton. Its not like it was a crisis situation.


RE: Mr Obama
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 6:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but it's also not a good thing when the rich get richer and the poor stay about the same.
Most of the middle class are in this category (staying the same) also. We don't start gaining until we hit about $90k a year. It IS good that the rich get richer and they are rich because of it. The poor are poor for a reason. Either through their own fault or some kind of disability. Either way, it's not exactly a "go getter" income group otherwise they wouldn't be poor.


RE: Mr Obama
By MrBungle123 on 3/21/2009 1:32:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well DUH, if you don't pay taxes, you don't get any back. That would be income confiscation and redistribution of wealth ala Karl Marx if it happened large scale. And the whiners they have the audacity to say the "rich" don't pay ENOUGH taxes!


a friend of mine that only worked half the year for a little over minimum wage got a $9500 "tax return"... most of this was from the child tax credit because she has 2 kids. But still there is no way she paid that much in taxes last year. It is nothing more than redistrobution of wealth.


RE: Mr Obama
By MrPoletski on 3/23/2009 8:32:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is nothing more than redistrobution of wealth.


Like the fed has been doing for the last few decades?

Inflation is the stealthiest tax of all. The dollar in your pocket is worth less today than it was yesterday, the wealth you lost because of that now belongs to the fed reserve.


RE: Mr Obama
By Etsp on 3/20/2009 10:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
I never meant to imply that you said they pay 95% tax either. What I meant by that was that your math was pretty fuzzy and based on false assumptions. Your statement would have made the most sense if they paid 95% of income taxes.


RE: Mr Obama
By superkdogg on 3/20/2009 1:29:07 PM , Rating: 1
It would be socialist, if your premise numbers were accurate. Proof, please.


RE: Mr Obama
By bhieb on 3/20/2009 2:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
It is not should not have put that in. It is more "Robin Hood" by necessity. See above.


RE: Mr Obama
By superkdogg on 3/20/2009 2:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
I have to applaud you for your honesty and apology. Way to be stand-up.


RE: Mr Obama
By walk2k on 3/20/2009 2:26:03 PM , Rating: 1
and Mr. Bush spent about $70 per household on the Iraq war. What's your point?


RE: Mr Obama
By Spuke on 3/20/2009 6:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and Mr. Bush spent about $70 per household on the Iraq war. What's your point?
Congress spent that money it has to be approved by them. Bush didn't spend sh!t. What's YOUR point?


Why not
By tastyratz on 3/20/2009 11:19:12 AM , Rating: 5
Its only money right?

The best way to fix being broke is spend!

Electric cars may be the "future" but we should worry about the present first. They are not viable for the current struggling market.

Creating jobs by subsidy through every market we can find with tax payer dollars is just devolving into total socialism. If it was viable to produce batteries in america instead of asia they would produce them here. Paying chunks of their bills to get them to open shop here is NOT productive. Once we stop paying it stops being economically feasible to operate here.

Where do they think this money is coming from? Everything cant be fixed by the substantial increase in national deficit that's trendy now.




RE: Why not
By Radnor on 3/20/2009 11:29:44 AM , Rating: 4
Japan did alright in the Great Depression in 1929 by doing that. I advice you to read a bit.

Japan did so good in devaluating the currency and increasing the deficit, the had steam enough to fight the pacific war in WWII. China and Russia escaped for different reasons, China because used the Silver parity and Russia because it had a whole different model.

By creating electric cars, they are creating demand, they are creating new areas of work, thus new jobs. I just think they should be more aggressive, or with bigger balls.

You should read more.


RE: Why not
By arazok on 3/20/2009 12:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
You should read more.

The Japanese did not escape the great depression subsidizing cars. Common sense should tell you that. Major economies, the US included, borrowed money to invest in things that increased productivity. They borrowed to build railroads, power plants, phone networks, roads, etc. The debits they incurred were enormous at the time, but were made insignificant because the investments grew the economy.

Buying cars does nothing to grow an economy. A car is the reward for excess production (savings). Making cars does not help one to make MORE cars. It’s absurd.


RE: Why not
By rbuszka on 3/20/2009 1:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
You're misconstruing the argument.

If the argument were that 'building more cars' is the answer to our economic crisis, we could simply call for GM to continue building more Hummers, Chevy Suburbans, Chevy Tahoes/GMC Yukons, and Chevy Silveradoes/GMC Sierras - the iconic gas-guzzlers of our time.

Instead, the argument is that a fundamental shift in automotive propulsion technology is required in order for our country to realize our goals of energy independence (that is, we need electric cars that can be fueled by any combustive or non-combustive cycle that generates electricity). By pouring money into the development of electric vehicles, the administration is signaling that they do not believe that the technology transition will happen quickly enough for the country to benefit if it is simply handled incrementally.

GM would probably still produce the Volt even if McCain had won in 2008 (given that the vehicle was being developed even before the screen door hit Bush on the way out), but acceptance of the technology would be a slow process if left to market forces. (And, politically speaking, nobody could claim credit for it. Let me also point out that 'market forces' are the principal reason why we still mainly burn coal to generate electricity.) The goal of this investment by the government is to bring electric car technology off the fringe and into the mainstream.


RE: Why not
By Radnor on 3/20/2009 3:25:25 PM , Rating: 1
You really should read a bit more.

The bought ammo due to nacionalist movement at the time. They didn't produce "new" ammo. But made the same old ammo. Anyway.

Lets start with the classics. Say's law. Although outdated, still applies.

PhysX, Economy, Low-level Informatics, chemistry and many others send common sense 6-foot under. Creating a new type o product, in this case an electric car will create a new demand. Ill give ya a nifty example. In the 1700s we were using oil candles mostly.

The french used vegetal oil, cheaper.
The English used wale oil, much more expensive, but created a demand that fueled their fishing fleets, and by splash you really need a real good War Navy to old your fishing grounds. Or the grounds of others for that matter.

You should read more. And basicly the diference was lamp oil.

You shouldnt build more cars for a dying demand. You are correct. But the amount of patents, research, distributed wealth and the creation of new supply and distribution chains, more competitive and effective than old outdated ones are the basis of this.

Life and death cycles are everywhere. The economy is no exception.

You stand corrected and you should really read more. Start by Say's Law.


RE: Why not
By tastyratz on 3/20/2009 12:33:42 PM , Rating: 1
But the demand for electric cars ISN'T here yet. He might as well have diverted a billion dollars to hamster sweater manufacturing facilities. Sure it creates jobs - but just because there is a warehouse full of hamster sweaters does not mean people will start putting sweaters on their hamsters. Creating the cars will not create demand... just a bunch of cars that sit on the lot next to their half priced competition.

They aren't economically viable enough to compete with fuel based cars outside of the Cameron Diaz market, and they wont be for years to come. They aren't even environmentally world changing as they still use dirty power to charge and create substantial battery waste. They are a notion right now. Electric cars are a rich persons status symbol.

If you want to "create jobs" and stimulate the economy, do so in area's that will reap realistic benefits. Produce goods or services that people will benefit from NOW to stimulate purchases.

While I think we should be more conservative with tax payer dollars than we seem to be lately, I most definitely think there are more viable investments than this.


RE: Why not
By ianweck on 3/23/2009 3:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the demand for electric cars ISN'T here yet.


I would disagree with that. On gm-volt.com there are 47,431 people signed up on the waiting list as of this morning. Sure the list may not be official, and maybe not every one of the people signed up on the list would actually lay out the money for the car but these people took the time to sign up. Meaning they have at least some interest in owning an electric vehicle.
I'm signed up, and I would buy one today if I could. I'm not in your "Cameron Diaz" market, I'm just a guy who didn't borrow more than he could afford, and doesn't keep a balance on my credit cards, and I have a decent job.

quote:
They aren't even environmentally world changing as they still use dirty power to charge and create substantial battery waste.

I get 100% of my power from renewable resources, wind, geothermal, hydro and I believe biomass. I know not everyone gets clean energy but that's not going to stop me from buying an electric vehicle.

quote:
Electric cars are a rich persons status symbol.

I'm solid middle class, not rich. I plan on buying this car because a) I think the tech is pretty cool, and b) It will be nice to not have to fill up my tank every 10 days when gas prices go back up. And you know they will, for whatever reason you want to use. (I'm going to be hypocritical here and mention that, even though I would like to stop using gas, that new Camaro is super sweet and I might just break down and wait for gen2 or 3 of the Volt. I'm trying so hard to resist!).

I'm not rich, but I don't have alot of debt.
I have a decent job that for now appears stable.
I've had my current car for nine years now, and by the time the Volt arrives and there's a real chance of me getting one, I will have had my car for probably eleven years. My car runs great but I'm ready for a change in vehicle. Yes I realize there is no end to my choice of cars I could own right now, but this is the one that I am most interested in. Personally I'm glad that there are people pushing to make this mainstream.
Maybe this doesn't change your mind about this topic, but at least you have my take on it.


RE: Why not
By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/2009 5:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On gm-volt.com there are 47,431 people signed up on the waiting list as of this morning.


In a country with 200 million registered driving households and god knows how many cars on the road.

/golf clap.


RE: Why not
By ianweck on 3/23/2009 5:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
True, but not bad for a small website and word of mouth.

quote:
/golf clap.


cute.


RE: Why not
By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/2009 6:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
The Volt is nothing but "gee wiz" right now. It's from a company that IS going to be bankrupt eventually, if not soon. It costs 10+ grand more than a conventional hybrid and doesn't even get better MPG. In this economy, you think that's a recipe for a big hit ?

Yes the technology is different and could even be said 'impressive', but people don't buy cars for technology.


RE: Why not
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 6:33:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but people don't buy cars for technology.
Well, they kind of do. Navigation, airbags, ABS, etc. All things people look for when buying a car.


RE: Why not
By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/2009 9:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
Airbags and ABS have been standard for what ? 8 years now ?

Navigation is something that can be put on ANY car. I wouldn't call it exclusive car tech. And anyone who would pay 5-10 grand more because of a factory navigation system isn't intelligent or frugal, which kinda invalidates my whole point don't ya think ?

Performance car enthusiasts are usually the ones overly concerned with how much 'tech is crammed into their cars. Which, again, is certainly not the Volt's target demographic.


RE: Why not
By TSS on 3/21/2009 11:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/20/news/economy/cbo_o...

"The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to between $1.67 trillion and $1.85 trillion"

well, wether it works or not america's already doing it. we'll see how it turns out. on the subject of electric cars:

they aren't creating demand. they are creating supply for a demand that doesn't exist, hoping the demand will rise. like they created security's on the stock market hoping the house prices would rise. we all know how that turned out.

however, with US household debt up in the trillions, do you really think anybody can afford an electric car?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradede...


RE: Why not
By Spuke on 3/23/2009 6:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting that most of that debt is wrapped up in home ownership which isn't a bad debt to have actually. Not as bad as I expected.


What does it cost to charge the volt.
By Mitch101 on 3/20/2009 12:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'm curious to what charging the Volt to go the first 40 miles will cost me in electricity? I like the idea the money goes to the local power company instead of oversees however what is the cost savings if any since a gallon of gas is around $2.25. If it costs more to charge it than where is the savings?




By barrychuck on 3/20/2009 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
Right now the cost to recharge would be way less than gasoline. The problem is that when everyone in your neighborhood plugs one in, and then also runs the dryer, stove, and ac in the house, your entire neighborhood goes dark. The current AC grids are not built to handle the loads of everyone driving an electric car. It's really simple math, just take the amount of gasoline you burn each day,multiply times 33.53(equiv kwhrs). While the electric car motor itself is more efficient than the gas engine, you have to calulate the loss with the controller, the wiring the battery, and the charger. Even the wiring inside your house has a loss factor. While the number I posted may be worst case scenario, actual use may not be that far off in the long term. At that rate, 1 electric equiv gallon is $3.35 at current rates ($0.10 per kwhr). Batteries age the most, so you might start out at 40mpg (electric equiv) and end up at 25mpg near the end of life. Again, i am doing the math from the electric meter to the road. many people only give you less than have of the story stating motor efficiency. Total system is what matters. The scary thought is add the grid losses, and realize that the power plant has to burn more than 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent to get it to you.


By CannedTurkey on 3/20/2009 1:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
I can't speak specifically to the Volt, but it was mentioned in the documentary 'Who Killed the Electric Car' that driving the EV1 was roughly equivalent to paying 60 cents a gallon.


RE: What does it cost to charge the volt.
By walk2k on 3/20/2009 2:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
Chevy estimates the Volt will cost about $.02 per mile to drive on electric-only (ie the first 40 miles). That's charging it off the grid, at current electrical rates.

There are ways to bring that cost down though, such as PV (solar).

If you can recharge from PV during the day, such as at PV carports in the parking lot at work, you will save money there (and your car will be kept out of the hot sun to boot).

You could also install PV at home and charge it there. Obviously that means your car has to be parked at home during the day, when the sun is shining, but even if you can't do that you can use your PV to run your meter backwards during the day (when the utilities pay you the highest rates for your energy) and then charge your car at night off the grid (when rates are lowest). Doing that could actually allow you to recharge your car for FREE (after startup costs of course, but there are many other benefits to installing PV at your home).


By Spuke on 3/20/2009 7:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously that means your car has to be parked at home during the day, when the sun is shining, but even if you can't do that you can use your PV to run your meter backwards during the day
It would cost you about $30k or so for a PV system large enough to "run your meter backwards". You would have to account for that cost too. And $30k is AFTER the incentives and rebates.


By Spectator on 3/20/2009 2:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
long term saving = nothing. lol.

Government taxes oil. We all abbandon oil.

Government must tax you else where. So from a grunts point of view; it really is erellevant(unless you want to allegedly "Save the Planet")

Unless we all are self surficient energy wise, to power home+cars. my personal feeling is; just see what happens and what is learnt from watching all the sheep(government inc.).


RE: What does it cost to charge the volt.
By Doormat on 3/20/2009 6:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
Since no one else bothered to do the math...

40 miles = 8kWh of energy (from GM)

Assuming an 85% efficiency between your power meter and the battery storage system, thats 9.2kWh. At 10c/kWh you can drive 40 miles for 92c. If a gallon of gas is $2.00 and you get an average of 25MPG, your gasoline cost is $3.20.


By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/2009 6:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
All the savings estimates get thrown out the window however, when you actually factor the cost of the vehicle.

Even if you ONLY drove it for 40 miles, and never used the gas engine (hardly likely) you would not be ahead for years compared to a standard economy car.


By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/2009 6:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Your money is not " going oversees ", the oil that produced the gas you're buying has already been paid for before it even hit the pump.

If you like your money staying here, stop voting for Democrats, and stop buying into the "drill baby drill" smear and realize domestic oil production is the best answer to our problems right now.

And don't, DON'T, cave in and buy some flim flam electric car. All that does is allow them to think they can keep putting off the solution to our energy problems if more people like you buy into it.


So....
By austinag on 3/20/2009 11:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
We'll be more independent from the mid east on oil, and more dependent on Bolivia for lithium for batteries.
I see "Energy dependence diversification" as a term we will soon become familiar with.




RE: So....
By abitofgo on 3/20/2009 11:34:01 AM , Rating: 2
At least for batteries it will be on the same continent...

Also a greater proportion of the US will speak the local lingo :o)

Imagine if we had to solely depend on Russia/China for Lithium.


RE: So....
By MarcLeFou on 3/20/2009 12:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
A big difference here is also that current batteries use lithium but there are alternate solutions available and the car won't know the difference (ex: li-on or ni-cad batteries).

Of course lithium is currently the best choice for a slew of reasons but that's not to say it will still be the best choice a few years from now. At least batteries chemicals are fairly easily interchangeable compared to petroleum so that would appear like a more futureproof solution than gas (or hydrogen) in that regard.


RE: So....
By mkrech on 3/20/2009 1:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least for batteries it will be on the same continent...


North America... South America... close enough.

;)


RE: So....
By Parhel on 3/20/2009 6:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
Lithium is exceedingly abundant. There's actually more lithium on Earth than there is lead. No credible source that I can find has yet to weigh in on the issue of lithium supply (which is very telling in and of itself) but there's at least 1,000 times more lithium ready for the taking than we will ever get around to using in batteries.


Choices
By tallcool1 on 3/20/2009 12:04:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
He considers electric vehicles a critical component to eliminating American reliance on oil from unstable foreign sources like the Middle East. He states, "The nation that leads on energy will be the nation that leads the world in the 21st century. That's why, around the world, nations are racing to lead in these industries of the future."
First of all, I do think there is a future for electric vehicles to co-exist with other fuel types of transporation.

However, President "I can't speak without a teleprompter", where does he think that most of these electric cars will get their power from? It is not from wind power or solar, as most of the energy in the USA comes from a combination of Coal, Nuclear, and Natural Gas. None of which he supports. If he wants to really help this country become independant, he would focus on helping the power industry, not punishing it. We have to take advantage of what natural resources we have. Big projects like drilling for OUR OWN gas or oil, building power plants and refineries all pay good wages. We should be focusing more on those projects if we want to become energy independant along with alternative energy projects.




RE: Choices
By marvdmartian on 3/23/2009 11:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
While today's electric cars won't be much in the way of performance, and strictly limited to urban use (imho), they are a stepping stone to tomorrow's technology, which will hopefully be a big improvement. Remember, we didn't get to the moon with the first rocket we built, it took time to build up the technology and know how.

One thing that bothers me is when I hear comparisons that whine about our alternative energy sources, and how poorly this country is doing in developing those sources. Take the whole "Spain is generating 30% of their power with wind" thing. Um.....the USA has how many more people than Spain (~300 million versus ~46 million) spread over how much bigger an area (3.8 million versus <200 thousand square miles)??? Yeah, we could do better....but we're also much larger, with much less population density in many areas. And a NIMBY attitude that doesn't help matters any.

Give us time, we'll improve. Until then, can we stop the whining?


Great Job Obama!
By Ammohunt on 3/20/2009 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Now all he has to do is spend $500B to keep the auto makers in business long enough for them to make $2.4B in Electric cars...What an idiot.




RE: Great Job Obama!
By mindless1 on 3/20/2009 8:24:21 PM , Rating: 1
Opposed to the better alternative, spend the money anyway but end up with zero electric cars? That's essentially what we've been doing up until now.


What a joke
By autoboy on 3/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: What a joke
By ArbysOvenMitt on 3/20/2009 1:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I'll be pretty excited when I'm finally able to purchase a fuel efficient plug in hybrid car that won't be completely abandoned by the American auto industry. There might actually be a reason to 'Buy American' again with any luck. The money's better spent there to propel our auto industry into the 21st century instead of pointlessly wasting it on contracts that should have been nullified when AIG decided to fail miserably and then beg for government aid.


Energy Storage
By Spectator on 3/20/2009 2:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think its a good idea to "Try" own battery techs.

As article states you behind in solar/wind/tidal. But its more important to store energy somehow.

you can allways learn/adopt the solar/.. whatever tech from countries that have been doing it for years.

But Storage is the holy grail.. Sht oil is just the best stored energy source we commonly use atm.




Nuke power
By AlmostExAMD on 3/20/2009 9:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with Nuke power,Although it's not just about being green,It's about creating more jobs as well.
So the answer lies with having Solar/Wind/Wave/Nuke all working together until they come up with an even better solution possibly fusion reactors,but until then tens of thousands of jobs around the globe would be available in all those industries.
P.S.- I wish my country(Australia) went Nuke,We have one of the largest supplies of Uranium that we sell to everyone else yet here we are still burning away coal while our politicians argue over green house emission cuts,Go figure?




Batteries here?
By toyotabedzrock on 3/21/2009 2:56:42 AM , Rating: 2
It takes lots of nasty chemicals to make batteries, Americans seem to dislike chemical plants which is why there isn't many plants here.




Plug-in Insight
By satinspiral on 3/21/2009 10:05:55 PM , Rating: 2
Anbody know if/when plugin Insights are due to be released? With a $7500 tax credit, the price is soooo right.




"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














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