The Obama administration has been highly supportive of electrification of the automobile.
In 2008 Obama stated it was his goal to achieve 1 million plugin cars on US roads by 2015. A major factor in spurring that adoption rate has been the Federal tax credit applied to EVs. That credit for $7500 currently only applies to the first 200,000 electric cars sold by each automotive company. It can also only be obtained as a tax credit after filing the following year’s taxes after purchase and only will be provided if the buyer has sufficient tax liability.
Earlier this week in his State of the Union address, President Obama reiterated his commitment to electrification of the automobile for the purpose of reducing the nation’s oil dependence.
He announced his next budget would include 8 billion in annual government aid to help develop advanced batteries and for communities to develop charging infrastructure.
“With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” said Obama.
In addition to those announcements, soon after the address Vice President Biden called on congress to expand the current $7500 tax credit such that it could be used at time of purchase.
“Just like the Cash for Clunkers program,” Biden said. “You won’t have to wait.”
Furthermore Democratic congressmen Sander and Carl Levin have now introduced new legislation in congress that would expand the federal tax credit incentive to the first 500,000 electric vehicles made by each manufacturer, up from the current 200,000 cap.
Source (Detroit News)
+22
Jan 28th, 2011 (2:42 pm)Well, I might as well weigh in with my *hugely* unpopular opinion that products, including the Volt, should be valuable enough to stand on their own without subsidies (AND I believe that it can!). I’d hope that everyone here knows that no one wants to see the Volt’s success more than I do, but not through subsidies. <b<Just my *consistent* opinion.
Be well,
Tagamet
+32
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:09 pm)Luv ya Tag, but I do not subscribe to your fairly-land world. We all know we subsidize both the production of gas/oil [can you say US Armed Services] and completely ignore the cost of ensuing CO2.
Ow, that pesky reality in which we live.
If there were a way to completely “un-subsidize” everything I’d be for it, but please, don’t hold your breath. Until that day, I fully support federal/state/govt subsidies for I what truly believe is in our national best interest.
+25
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:10 pm)Keep in Mind Tag that the US Govt provides 30 Billion a year in Oil subsidies. The entire subsidy for a volt would be 1.5Billion (200,000 * 7500).
+22
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:12 pm)@Tagamet: I think everyone agrees that the desired outcome is a variety of plug-in hybrid vehicles for sale, that can succeed without government subsidies. As battery technology improves and charging stations proliferate, we eventually move to a pure-electric future (which may take 50 or more years).
I really think that the government subsidies are very important at the beginning, though, to get over the initial hurdles of battery development, and also of “mainstreaming” electric vehicles. It’s a chicken-and-egg thing: if nobody is buying electric cars, it’s not worth it for companies (and the university labs that they sponsor) to invest in battery development, and if batteries aren’t cheap and reliable, nobody buys a car. So the gov’t steps in to short-circuit this, and eventually you’ve made batteries cheap enough to set up a self-sustaining process of development. Same thing with getting charging stations installed, and the “electric infrastructure” for charging in houses, etc. You can call this “mainstreaming” of electric vehicle technology.
The goal is for electric (and plug-in) car development to be like what happens with internal combustion engines right now: the government doesn’t have to subsidize ICE development heavily today, because long ago, it became worthwhile for companies to do it themselves.
You can make the case that “well, the government didn’t have to subsidize engine development in the past, why should electric cars get it now”? But I think that misses two important points: 1. internal-combustion technology development *was* heavily subsidized, via the military (e.g. superchargers for aircraft engines), and 2. it is apparent that we don’t have the luxury of waiting a hundred years for an economical electric car to be developed without government intervention.
+24
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:12 pm)From the article:
“Furthermore Democratic congressmen Sander and Carl Levin have now introduced new legislation in congress that would expand the federal tax credit incentive to the first 500,000 electric vehicles made by each manufacturer, up from the current 200,000 cap.”
Noooooooo! No more frigin freabie handouts. I am a proponent of EV incentives. Have a tax credit is definitely a good thing, IMO. I thought $7500 was a little high but that’s OK too. What I can stand and don’t want to see increased is the gimme to every manufacturer regradless of how much of an EV laggard they are being. If the program is to be changed, then put all of the incentives in ONE pool and let all of the car manufacturers compete for their share of that pool. If GM, Tesla, and Nissan are the only one’s producing vehicles that qualify then so be it and they get all of the incentives. They also should not increase the cost of the program. Instead create an earlier phase out point to extend the same cost over more vehicles.
…and (some of you are going to luv this debate rehash) tax gas on non-commercial gasoline use to fund the program thereby actually reducing the forecasted deficit.
+11
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:14 pm)Tagamet,
Well- just think of it as evening the playing field, to match things like subsidies to Oil Companies, and subsidies that foreign car makers get from their government;-) More seriously, we cannot afford to wait for the ‘free market’ to push EVs, for a couple of reasons. 1st, I think OPEC and Oil companies will play with the price of oil to discourage EVs- the problem with that, and the second more important reason, is that we will then be caught with our pants down, economically speaking, when there is either no more oil, or supplies become suddenly limited and very costly- this will result in our ecomomy taking sudden body blows and we will be caught in widely swinging ecomomy that lunges in recession after recession- that has been seen in the past when energy prices/supplies have changed dramatically for the worse. IF we choose now to change, I believe we can avoid the worst of this.
Like the old Fram Oil Filter commercial- you can pay now, or you can pay me later! (I like it better than ‘a stitch in time save nine,’ or ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure-’ but I think you get the idea;-)
+21
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:20 pm)Agreed!
+9
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:23 pm)#2
Amen. +1
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:23 pm)Ditto.
The 200,000 is fine where it’s at. But allowing to use the $7,500.00 at the time of purchase is a BIG plus. It really doesn’t change things much from how it is now.
So, what about the peeps who bought the Volt already? They still gotta wait for the following year? Kinda sucks cuz that $7,500.00 was financed.
And what does that do for a Lease?
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:28 pm)It’s hard to believe the president actually supports the electrification of the car for me. I had planned to charge my volt at work, a naval base, but found there is legislation passed in september 2010 which prohibits the charging of any private electric vehicles on government property, even if the costs are covered by the owner. Hence I had to cancel my order a month from delivery
hopefully in a few years laws will change and I’ll have my volt!
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:29 pm)Yall know I ant the smartest so……
What’s “non-commercial gasoline”?
+5
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:31 pm)Now that don’t make no lika sense.
What idiot passed that legislation? Like there were millins of military EV owners that could suck the grid dry………sheeeeeeesh.
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:33 pm)@Josh,
That sounds … well, frankly, unbelievable. The Democratic-controlled 111th Congress passed a law disallowing charging of electric vehicles on government property? Really? (I’m not saying you’re lying, just that it’s quite incredible that they would pass such a law.)
I suppose it would impose significant electricity and equipment costs on the government, so it’s a money-saving thing, but jeez, you’d think they’d get their strategy and messaging straight on this. The government routinely implements new energy-saving technologies on government buildings in order to provide an indirect subsidy to their development; why not do it with electric cars, too?
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:34 pm)i agree that no more handouts to companies, in effect picking individual winners and losers has to stop. Let the car manufactures make the decisions about investing in battery technology.
I do though agree with money to maintain the credits for these cars. I just think the credits at this point should be all cost justified. Everything needs to be cost justified.
I think a credit of $5,000 for each 100,000 miles of AER (or 3000 gallons of gasoline displaced) is a bargain for our country:
- As long as the car is built in America (Leaf’s built in Tennessee)
- $1.67 in a tax credit for every gallon of gas saved is worth keeping all that oil money in our economy
But of course it should be phased out at a regular schedule.
2010-2015 $1.67 per gallon gas displaced
2016 $1.20 per gallon
2017 $1.00 per gallon
2018 $.80 per gallon
The Rush Limbaughs (and i’m a conservative) refuse to acknowlege the economic value of displacing imported oil unless its displaced with American production. I’m for more Domestic production but I”m also for developing EREV/BEVs
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:43 pm)Basically Truck Drivers, Cargo Ships, And Airplanes would be exempt from the increased taxes. This would prevent an increase in the cost of goods like we saw in 2008 when Fuel costs were through the roof and the Oil Industry blamed ethanol.
Fuel Taxes Increase = Food Costs Increase (and everything else that is transported – so basically everything)
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:44 pm)“use”. You left off this word. Trucking would be commercial, truckin’ your azz in your car would not be. All taxes paid at the pump but credited back at income tax time with corporate filing. Don’t wanna raise the price of Johnny’s cereal.
+8
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:46 pm)I think the tax credit should be reduced if you buy a car that is not assembled in the US. Japan wouldn’t even allow US cars in their cash for clunkers.
+10
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:48 pm)I’d rather view a photo of the President smiling inside the Volt.
If the government is going to help the automobile industry, then helping getting drivers into EV’s is better than handing the auto industry money to build gas guzzlers.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:51 pm)I really don’t understand why OBAMA doesn’t insist these credits are for Made in America only.
Perhaps since the Leaf is made in America but by non union workers he doesn’t care about that distinction. I care about America, maybe Obama just cares about unions?
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:57 pm)If that’s true the hell to the NO!
As you describe, if those “life necessities” cost goes up, then where would the lower and maybe even the middle class be able to afford a $41,000.00 car? Sure it will make it more “desireable” but affordable? No way. Will our income go up to the point we can afford one of these EV’s when they do raise the price?
Stop and think about this, would the Volt be priced at $41,000.00 and the LEAF priced at $34,000.00 if there were no Gubbment subsideies?
Also would those charge stations in the homes be $1,450.00 if there was no gubbment rebate of $1,000.00?
They’d all be less in price without those subsidies.
+9
Jan 28th, 2011 (3:59 pm)Then stop ethanol (and farm) subsidies too.
Be well,
Tagamet
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:02 pm)Take a look at recent grain commodity prices and get back to me on ethanol and farm subsidies – and we are EXPORTING ethanol!
Be well,
Tagamet
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:04 pm)Ethanol is not responsible for food price increases as much as fuel cost. The Corn made into ethanol was intended to be Animal Feed, but the main byproduct of ethanol making is Animal feed. We basically distill the alcohols from the grain and are left with a quality feed product. Plus it is not shipped across the ocean, it is grown right here in our own country.
Food vs Fuel debate is Oil Industy FUD.
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:05 pm)Tag is right!
I say cut all government subsidies & let the chips fall where they may.
We Americans don’t know what it means to be self sufficient and start something from scratch anymore. Relying on government incentives & blaming others are the norm.
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:08 pm)Seems to me that your world is the fairy land. Can you point to a spot where our govt has actually “picked a winner”? That’s exactly what they did (and are doing) with H fuel cells. It’s not their ROLE, and even if it was, they suck at it! That’s the pesky reality. So you are ok with the ethanol subsidies that are driving up grain prices? You do know that we are *ex*porting ethanol?
Love ‘Ya man, but you need to wake up.
Be well,
Tagamet
Be well,
Tagamet
+8
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:13 pm)But it IS shipped across the ocean. It’s being exported. That corn is being subsidized with our tax dollars. We A) shouldn’t be spending tax dollars supporting business and B) even if it was a good thing, we can’t afford it. The ends simply do not justify the means. Why not just use tax dollars to GIVE everyone a Volt? Same thing.
Be well,
Tagame
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:16 pm)Hey, Tag, I’m 100% with you. Reading through many of the posts critical of your view, it seems like the underlying reasoning is “Well, the government subsidizes other things, so they might as well subsidize electric cars?” We have so many subsidies, so many trade tariffs, so many tax “loopholes”; what do you think would happen if economic activity had to stand on its own merit? Other than add a bunch of lawyers, accounts and bureaucrats to the unemployment roles, that is?
+15
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:18 pm)Yes, exactly, +1.
If you look at all the hidden costs of oil, gasoline would be over $10/gallon.
http://www.setamericafree.org/saf_hiddencostofoil010507.pdf
All of those oil subsidies expand our government.
By contrast, the subsidies for plug-ins are temporary. So in the long run we’ll have less government subsidies by expanding plug-in incentives near term.
Once plug-in sales increase, the price will come down naturally, and the federal incentives won’t be necessary.
Bottom line: I’d rather have a temporary plug-in subsidy than a permanent oil subsidy.
.
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:18 pm)Complete the following:
Two wrongs don’t make a _ _ _ _ _.
Be well,
Tagamet
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:19 pm)We’re also exporting Crude Oil…
http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTEXUS2&f=A
Now that’s just Bass Ackwards if you ask me.
I’m with BDP@24.
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:21 pm)That’s the most intellectual yoga-ized comment I’ve read in a long time! My goodness! (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
+17
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:23 pm)I know that it’s early in the thread, but I’d like to express my heartfelt admiration (and thanks) for the civil nature of all of the remarks today. This is a very special place.
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:25 pm)That’s because Obama believes in capitalism, and that means we have to compete in a world market.
.
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:29 pm)What matters is net imports/exports. If you look at net, we import about 66% of our oil.
.
+5
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:33 pm)But still maaaannnn….
If we use so much, why the blikety blink blink are we sending it away? If we used 100% of our own crude, wouldn’t that cause that 66% to decrease?
/Its all about who will pay the mo$t for the crude……aint it?
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:33 pm)Dave G,
Why don’t you trust that the Volt would be successful on it’s own merits?
I do.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:35 pm)CaptJackSparrow,
Excellent question, CJS. I hope that it gets answered.
Be well,
Tagamet
/DonC must be absent today (lol)
+8
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:36 pm)Particularly notable of the continuous EV-battery claims being GM’s $7 mil contribution of a $17 mil VC round into Envia Systems right here in Northern California. (Newark) Its not so much the dollar size as that the deal includes a GM license. Recall GM’s battery ops has tested a couple hundred or so battery chemistries. If GM can bring the Envia technology into production and its 1/3 increase in power and likewise reduction in costs VOLT will be at the threshold of its Gen 2 battery. Envia Systems has done what the other 150 Li-ion wannabes haven’t done – license the General. Hopefully GM’s return to Northern California bears new employment.
Is the million EV goal attainable? Could be. Given GM’s recent plans to increase production into the 150,000 range – a three year run means half that 2015 goal.
One thing’s for sure. VOLT is a game changer. And competition is caught flat out unprepared.
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:38 pm)Because it’s still very low volume relative to other types of cars. When sales volume goes up, manufacturing costs will go down, and the tax credit will no longer be necessary. And that’s exactly how the tax credits are designed, to phase out as sales volumes go up. So by definition it’s temporary.
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:39 pm)Or maybe they wouldnt exist.
+7
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:40 pm)================================
HONDA???
+10
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:40 pm)Just thought I’d weigh in – like Tag, I dislike all these tax incentives. Products should stand on their own. The argument that the Fed provides $30B in incentives to gas, so therefore we should spend $1.5B on the Volt is the same mentality that built our massive and crippling national debt. Instead of both sides spending, why not go after and cut off that $30B in gas incentives? Then, instead of spending $31.5B overall, we’d spend $0.
Brian
+6
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:43 pm)All governments subsidize their own industries. Many much more than the US. You have to in this global economic warefare. Otherwise start learning to speak Chinese/Japanese/German/Portugese, and kiss your job goodbye.
+5
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:44 pm)Don’t put words in my mouth. I said I believe the Volt is in our national best interest. And I do. I do not think that of the other examples you mention. Funny how you twisted it around. Try again.
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:45 pm)Josh,
Could you clarify this and add where more can be learned about this? I have not heard about this legislation at all.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:46 pm)Dave G,
It doesn’t seem possible that you are saying that anything temporary is good. Even if the tax credit was a good thing, isn’t the article above saying that extensions are *already* being proposed?
I’m fine with the Volt’s success taking a bit longer without subsidies, but you seem uncomfortable with that. Or are you worried that they wouldn’t ever see wide acceptance without the tax money?
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:47 pm)I’m thankfully self employed. Only way to lose my job would be a military invasion. For that I own several “pea shooters”! ; )
+13
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:49 pm)Maybe this will help:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm
We currently import around 9 million barrels of crude oil per day. We currently export around 30 thousand barrels of crude oil per day. So our crude oil exports are way less than 1% of our imports.
No. Most of what we export is refined oil products, and most of that comes from imported oil. In other words, what we’re exporting is our refinery capacity, not our crude oil.
+7
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:50 pm)I disagree. I think we can’t afford NOT to. Global competition and the greater good and so forth…
If you dont like goverment spending, lets just cut all social services, fire dept., police dept, etc., and as someone phrased earlier “Let the chips fall where they may”.
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:53 pm)Sorry, I’ll try again, but please feel free to clarify.
So I now know that you think that the Volt is in our national interest. Is it appropriate for the govt to subsidize things they see as in our national interest? That seems like the implication, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
LMK.
Be well,
Tagamet
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:54 pm)Tagamet,
Tagament – the failing in that theory is that the gasoline engine *IS* subsidized by the blood of Americans and through the indebtedness of our grandchildren (by participating and paying for the wars and geopolitical security that ensures it’s “low cost”)
I know you’re a staunch Volt advocate, but I’d like to present this alternative theory that gasoline actually is SUBSIDIZED through wars, debts, and shady back room deals. Given that our taxes are being used to subsidize gasoline in this way, et’s give tax incentives for electric vehicles a shot here.
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:56 pm)No one has a crystal ball, but it would be nice to see the data/studies on price levels vs. sales figures. I’m sure GM has done them along with all the other car manufacturers and several government agencies. They didnt pull $7500 out of the air.
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:57 pm)Sounds like you are lumping govt funding/spending with govt *subsidies*. No? One is providing services, the other is picking winners (or funding lobbyist issues – like oil and farms).
Be well,
Tagamet
-6
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:57 pm)Over a 10 year lifetime, the Volt can be realistically expected to supplant the consumption of 1K to 2K gallons of oil (comparing to best commercially available alternative technology – that’s right, a Prius but even better options are on the near-term horizon). That’s $3 to $6 in taxpayer subsidy for every gallon of oil avoided.
That’s pitiful. There are far cheaper ways to reduce the consumption of oil. Taxpayer subsidies should be targeted to those programs which have great cost-performance.
+11
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:58 pm)Tagamet,
Then gasoline should be “trusted” to survive on it’s own merits and we should allow the middle east to fall whatever way the wind blows. No billion dollar military subsidies for the likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ensure stability, no wars with countries like Iraq, no worrying about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it’s effect on regional stability. Let’s just just let the middle east cards fall as they may and lets watch what happens to the price of gas once we stop subsidiing it with American blood, tax dollars, and back room deals.
Jan 28th, 2011 (4:58 pm)Tag & CJS
Read this… interesting
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2008/08/does-the-us-export-domestic-oi.html
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:00 pm)I hope we hit the goal, but I still dont know what they are calling an EV. Do electric motorcycles count? What about NEVs? The PUMA (LOL)?
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:01 pm)The way GOOD data is drawn, is both with and without intervention. We’ll never have the answer to how a Volt sans subsidies would have done. *I* think it would have been a huge success – and I certainly don’t trust the Govt’s crystal balls (lol).
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:04 pm)I’ll read it, but I already know that the source is a spin machine that *lives* on……. govt SUBSIDIES! (lol)
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:04 pm)If everyone else is unemployed, then essentially you are unemployed (not to mention a long list of other problems you’ll have)
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:04 pm)If you get sick, the doctor may prescribe antibiotics. Depending of how well you heal, the dose may be increased or decreased. That’s normal. Debating the details of the tax credit is a similar process. Both are temporary.
Are you concerned that the tax credit will become permanent? I really don’t think that will happen. Look at the Prius tax credits as an example.
Yes, I’m worried that if the price remains too high, sales volumes will be too low to enable decreases in manufacturing cost, and mass market acceptance of plug-ins could be deferred for many years, perhaps decades.
We must remember that it’s sales volume that leads to decreased manufacturing cost. New technology won’t do it. In fact, new technology usually costs more. And time won’t do it either. Many high cost niche products exist for decades, and prices stay pretty much the same.
.
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:05 pm)Charlie H,
Charlie – you don’t seem to understand. Aside from the blood spilt, tax payers spent more on the Iraq War “keeping oil cheap” in ONE DAY every day for multiple years than the first phase of subsidies will cost to get 150,000 cars on the road. Capeeche? This math is pretty easy to appreciate once you put it all in context.
You want to quit subsidiing cars like the Volt, then you need to quit subsidizing oil through the current multi-billion dollar foreign policy and military committments. The cost of oil is far too high, and it’s time for this to come to an end. Turn on your TV this evening and watch as Egypt is toppled. Enjoy.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:08 pm)I’m lumping the spending in with “what’s best for the country”. Wether its medicare, social security, defense spending, or subsidies to EV car companies that reduce our dependency on foreign-terrorist-supporting-oil-countries.
+18
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:11 pm)This discussion could get really ugly, and it has not. That is a good thing…..
My personal opinion, for what that is worth:
(Steps Up On The Soapbox Now)
Government spending on anything is OUR MONEY!!!
We are now over 14 TRILLION dollars in debt – that is over $45K for every single person in the USA!!! That is sheer lunacy. And I still do not understand the “We can spend our way out of debt” line….. Or how about “Medicare is going broke, so lets reduce employees contributions to the fund and see how that helps!”
And there is no end in sight of this wild drunken spending spree that Washington, DC is on.
It simply has to stop, or in a very few years we are going to be so much trouble that we may not be able to recover. The “We need to tax someone else, but not me” and “Your project is pork, but mine is an excellent use of funds” mentality has got to be corrected. I see now that Harry Reid is now opposed to any bans on earmarks. Do you think that has anything to do with him needing to get re-elected? Noooooo. He says it is a power grab by the President!
I have to agree with Tag on this one. The problem is that in our leaders’ minds, if they stop this $7500 subsidy on electric cars, they think that they now have that money to spend on something else, instead of the common sense approach of reducing the debt on our shoulders. That is where the real problem lies.
We need an amendment to the Constitution that requires a balanced budget, and a tax code that is simple and without loopholes for friends of political contributors. Lower my tax rate to a flat rate of 15% of my income, and I don’t need a deduction for my mortgage interest. I also would not need to file a 47 page tax return, and need a CPA to decipher it. Maybe the IRS would not need 115,000 employees either! Is that so hard to understand?
Obviously, this gets me really fired up…..
(Steps off the soapbox now)
Sorry I got so wordy……
But hey, if you all think I should get a $7500 present for buying a Volt, I sure as heck am going to take it!!!!
+8
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:14 pm)It just depends on whether you want to win or not. If you think it’s important to reduce dependency on oil as soon as possible then subsidies are a no-brainer. If you’re happy to muddle through and let the economy be held hostage and our national security be placed at risk then letting the market do its thing is the better solution.
It’s not a hard choice for me. Not much is strategically more important than making our transportation sector independent of oil. Rather than spending billions on a military needed to fight terrorism in the field, it’s more effective and cheaper to kill oil as a strategic resource and you kill the lifeblood of terrorism. Bring on the subsidies! Stated another way, it’s both foolish and incongruous for anyone to support military spending but oppose subsidies for the electrification of transportation.
Your mistake, and its profound, is in thinking that there is a market solution for problems of national security. Markets are designed to ration goods and services. They’re great at that but they are one trick ponies. They have no ability whatsoever to fight wars or to defend the country.
Personally I agree with you about the viability of the Volt and have no doubt that electrification will happen regardless of the subsidies. The issue is speed. In the long run electrification or some alternative will triumph, but as has been pointed out, in the long run we’re all dead.
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:15 pm)Sorry Kdawg, I get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions. That was a fair article and a much better “read” than his book (which costs $120).
Location obviously plays a role in import/export of commodities. Uncontested.
Sorry I posted before reading.
Be well,
Tagamet
-4
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:18 pm)I thought it was 1.4T?
+5
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:23 pm)The National debt as of 01-28-2011 at 5:22:18 EST:
Yikes!!!!
The $1.4T number is the estimated debt for THIS YEAR!!!!
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:23 pm)Agreed!!! That is a red herring riding shotgun with hydrogen.
-1
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:23 pm)No, once again, your mistake is thinking that I believe that military issues should be left to supply and demand.
The govt is there to protect us (always) and to build infrastructure (sometimes). Throwing our money at pet projects – however well intentioned- outside the role of the federal govt.
You *seem* to be saying that we will somehow be more safe by spending tax dollars on Volts. Unrelated. Are we safer now that we’ve spent bazzillions on hydrogen fuel cells? Nope.
Be well,
Tagamet
/glad you showed up (g)
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:25 pm)Great Gooooogly Moooogley!!!!
That’s close enough to be 12/21/2012….lol
+9
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:25 pm)Jim I,
I look at the $7500 not as spending going away, down a toilet, but as an invesment. And I think this investment will pay for itself quickly. And will keep paying for itself. As a country, we will come out way ahead in the end.
I’m OK w/investing my tax $ here.
Disclaimer:
{(politcally i’m not Dem or Rep, Conservative or Liberal, (too polarized), but I would like decreased gov spending, …..in certain areas. I think there’s too many Gov. employees (not talking about wrench turners, but suit wearers), making very large salaries. I think the defense budget is too big also. And dont get me started on trade deficit)}
+20
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:25 pm)Spending is driven by (1) Medicare; (2) Social Security; and (3) Defense. Nothing else mattes. So worrying about EV subsidies is like looking for your keys under the street light when you’ve lost them somewhere else because “the light is better”. IOW ranting about government spending is useless unless you’re willing to whack those three areas by at least 30%. (I’d also argue that EV subsidies will get better results for a fraction of the cost of increased military spending but that’s a different issue).
We don’t pay enough in Medicare taxes to cover Medicare costs. We don’t pay enough Social Security taxes to pay for Social Security. And we don’t pay enough income tax to pay for Defense. Personally I’m happy to cut spending in these areas but the reality is that the vast majority of voters want to cling to the myth that they can get something for nothing and that the root cause of budget deficits is wasteful government spending. It’s not, and if you want to see the reason for the budget deficit rather than looking towards Washington DC we as voters need to look in the mirror — that’s where we’ll find the problem.
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:27 pm)And the *interest* on that debt is four thousand million dollars a day ($4 Billion/day)!
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:29 pm)How much of this debt is debt we owe to ourselves?
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:31 pm)Well, at least you’re half right, DonC. We *do* need to reform/cut 1. 2. and 3, but spending a cent to subsidize Volt’s is one less cent we have LEFT. It does nothing to fix 1, 2, or 3. It’s unrelated.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:34 pm)Excellent question. Could you please educate me? It doesn’t seem too efficient to pay ourselves from our own pocket (read tax payers).
Be well,
Tagamet
+6
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:34 pm)Yup, back from yoga so my mind is clear. (Only kidding).
I am not a big believer in subsidies. They generally don’t work. However there are exceptions. Right now the Cold War is over and the number one threat is terrorism and countries which do not share our values. Countries that support terrorism and oppose our values have all the oil. We can’t send them hundreds of billions of dollars and year, have that money go to terrorists, and then spend hundreds of billions more fighting terrorism in the field. It’s just less expensive and more effective to cut the funding for terrorism by killing oil as a strategic commodity by, among other things, subsidizing EVs.
What part of this isn’t “protecting” the country? You seem to be saying that an activity like clearing brush that will prevent a fire from engulfing a community isn’t a valid government activity but spending 100X as much fighting the fire which started because the brush wasn’t cleared is. This makes no sense to me. I want the cheaper and more effective solution.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:43 pm)DonC,
Do you seriously believe that electric cars will have a significant impact on terror exporting countries in our lifetime? I know it’s a buzz kill, but even if we exceeded the president’s goal by a factor of 10, the terrorist won’t even notice. And even if they noticed do you think that they’d end up lacking funds?
Be well,
Tagamet
+5
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:43 pm)Charlie H,
Personally I expect to displace closer to 4,000 gallons of gas over the course of 10 years but that is because I will be able to plug in at work. With that put aside for the moment, I think you are looking at the subsidy the wrong way. If we subsidize the first generation of EVs so that the battery and car companies have enough financial incentives to engineer EVs that can more quickly be cost effective then the subsidy pays for itself many times over.
Finally, if you believe that the effects of Peak Oil are coming soon (or are already here) then this paltry subsidy is just the tip of the iceberg of what is needed and needed quick. I’m in that camp and so favor increasing gas taxes and subsidizing EV, smart grid technology, HSR and freight rail, energy conservation, etc.
+5
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:44 pm)========================
So you don’t think that the government raiding the Social Security piggy bank over the last 25 years to say they were keeping spending in check is a problem? Or giving Wall Street banks that caused their own problems $1T is an event that should be of concern to us? Or a healthcare reform that was sold as a money saving idea, but might actually cost $1T over the next 10 years isn’t worth talking about? Sure they are!
This isn’t a Republican or a Democratic problem. It is a systemic failure by our elected leaders to do anything that may hurt their chances of re-election. IMHO, if you asked the members of Congress if the sky was blue, they would debate it for a year, and then appoint a commission to study it until after the next election…..
Social Security and Medicare taxes must be increased, or benefits must be cut. Or else the entire systems are going to crash. And as far as defense, there is going to have to be a time where we realize that we can not police the entire world. We simply can not afford it, either in money or in the lives lost. And this is from a proud father of a son in the Navy.
In reality, to say there is no point in cutting anything, because it is too small to make a difference is just crazy. Anything helps. Maybe not a lot, but it helps. BUT IT HAS TO START SOMEWHERE, AND SOON!
-5
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:45 pm)It’s out money right? It’s our debt we owe to ourselves, so………………why don’t we all jus fogettaboutit.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:47 pm)Hi #57 kdawg: As we speak its beginning to dawn on the auto-world VOLT represents a whole new kind of EV – facts are facts and the kind of numbers Lyle reports are pretty much the same for all VOLT owners. These kinds of numbers were a dream up to VOLT. Yes, on EV its not all that impressive 25-50 miles typically. On ICE, 38 mpg isn’t a barn-burner. However, as it turns out the summation exceeds anything expected – me included. I read a posting by a Sonoma couple commuting 140+ miles/day to the City and back … they missed a charge here and there – no problem – and still without half-trying- were stunned by the 6-8 galoons over 600-800 miles.
What this means is that VOLT will be relevant in 2015 even though its highly likely by 2015 a 300-500 mile range EV will be routine.
For CorvetteGuy [if he reads this]: Does GM have a VOLT training program for independent service station mechanics?
+8
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:49 pm)Great thought provoking post today….
Tagament, while I appreciate your consistency of message, I have a slightly different view. Like you, I totally dislike government subsidies; however there are times that they are a necessary evil. Many times, INERTIA exists in the market place.
Take EV’s. Everyone knew they were a good idea. Technology was slowly advancing on several fronts, making it look more and more likely that a mass-produced EV could be viable. However, before manufacturers took the leap of faith in designing and building such a vehicle, they needed the reassurance that a market would exist. A government funded consumer tax incentive did just that – it created a pool of interested consumers who would be early adapters.
My issue is not with the initial $7,500 tax rebate…. my issue is with the LACK OF AN EXIT PLAN. Thus, here are a few rules I would implement:
1. Any taxpayer funded subsidy should ONLY APPLY to items produced in that country. Thus, EV subsidies in the US should only apply to vehicles produced here in the US with jobs that generate US taxes and stimulate the US Economy.
2. Any tax subsidy should be for a limited number of consumers or a limited time. Allowing a specific number by manufacturer defeats the purpose. A tax rebate like the $7,500 EV rebate should reward those manufacturers who get product to market first. The consumer incentive applies just as much to manufacturers to help them launch new products.
3. Any tax rebate MUST have a budgeted life expectancy and an exit strategy. Take this $7,500 tax rebate. Here is my suggestion:
– $7,500 per vehicle for the first 500,000 SOLD (any manufacturer, built in the US)
– $5,000 per vehicle for the next 250,000 SOLD (any manufacturer, built in the US)
– $2,500 per vehicle for the next 250,000 SOLD (any manufacturer, built in the US)
After the first 1 million EV’s are on the road, the train has left the station and consumer behavior has been affected. Manfacturers will be producing EV’s in mass to meet the market.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:50 pm)BINGO. And when the commission issues its report, it will be ignored – just like the last one. It has solutions spelled out!
I just read the report a week ago.
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (5:56 pm)or they would be not, which IMO is more likely. GM may not have sent the Volt to production and then we would also not be having a conversation about chargers. Tesla had been shipping cars since 2008 yet nobody talked about public charging or subsidized initial chargning until after the big boys got in the game. FWIW, I think a subsidized home charger for the Volt is a wste of money unless it is part of a research program that has a promising goal which I believe may be the case.
History suggests what the entrenched industries will do if wholely left to their own devices. If the barrier entry costs weren’t so high, we could let the free market runs its course as entrepeneurs would take advantage if the techonology where there. The cost barrier is just too high for automotive manufacturing.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:07 pm)So you don’t believe that the Volt could be successful without taxpayer help? I honestly believe that it would have been wildly successful, but have take a little longer to hit the same sales levels. JMO. I guess I’m more confident in the Volt. I know I’m less confident in the govt’s track record of picking winners. There is just far too much room for mischief (read lobbyists).
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:07 pm)I agree about the ethanol subsidies. That said, farm subsidies as a whole are a different matter. They are neither intrinsically good nor bad. I think we had big problems many years ago prior to farm subsidies and they were implemented for good reason and have done a reasonable job. Having a reliable food supply is a fairly important national interest, IMO. Just like everything else though, there is no black and white. They need to be overseen and kept up to date and eliminated at times. The reduction and elimination part is where government has difficulties.
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:12 pm)LeoK,
Yeah, I’m nothing if I’m not consistent (lol). Not that I *approve*, but there is an exit strategy based on when the 200K vehicle is sold. It goes down every 6 months I think. DonC knows for sure – he told me. (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
+6
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:18 pm)I think if we had started and continued with conviction 30 years ago to address the energy problem, there would be a LOT less money to fund terrorists. That said, there could very well be many more less funded terrorists too. Either way on that, our country would be far better off than we are now if we were living within our own oil capacity means.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:19 pm)Uncontested. Not that I follow them closely, but I can’t remember *ever* hearing about them being reduced or even reviewed. They probably have been looked at by some agriculture committee staffed by reps from the farm-belt.
This thread should be saved for an historic record of a politically charged discussion that remained civil! Seriously, it’s amazing! I think that the friendship factor is showing. We’ve bonded well here.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:21 pm)koz,
Uncontested! +1.
Things don’t look good in Egypt.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:26 pm)ROTFLMAO! While you’re at it, where do I pick up my Volt?
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:33 pm)I know the Volt would have to first be produced before it would even have an opportunity to fail. I don’t know for sure if Mr. Wagoner and his BOD friends would have still greenlighted the Volt without subsidies but it certainly would have been a different conversation and if I had to bet a side I would lay my money on no.
That said, if they did give the go ahead and Volts entered the market without subsidies then the question starts with what price would they then be charging and how much conviction would they have for the program. With enough conviction, I believe the Volt would eventually be successful and the price would determine how quickly that success would be. I guess we would have to define success. In my mind a self sustaining product that is truely profitable at a steady or increasing consumption rate would qualify. Thus, if the price were $41K and GM were making nothing on it (as they are saying but I’m not believing) then it would probably take a long time and a lot of conviction. Typically public companies, and particularly car manufacturers, don’t show a lot of conviction for these endeavours. With that attitude, the EV1 could have been successful at some point.
The better questions, to me, are:
Is there a tangible benefit to the subsidies?
Are the benefits worth the costs?
Is this subsidy structure in the best way to maximize the benefit and minimize the cost?
IMO, the answers are yes, yes, and no. Thus, I think revisiting, revising, and improving upon them (not necessarily increasing them) is a good excercise.
They should be more general. Someone had a good idea about incenties scales to fuel displacement potential. If implementable, that sounds like a good idea. It could be more general and less of a “picking winner” approach. They also should NOT be a gimme for every manufacturer. WTF, this is absurd. If a country has had like industries that excluded our manufacturers or our manufacturing from participating then we sure as he!! should be excluding theirs from our programs. Phasing out should also be an essential part of any of these programs because that is the part that government gets so consistantly wrong.
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:38 pm)#25
How about the Prius? “govt” subsidies made the Prius a success in the US, and they’re all built in Japan.
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:40 pm)#26
Works for me. You could do it for what we’ve blown in Iraq and Afghanistan. A lot better investment IMHO.
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:42 pm)Yes, yes, and yes. It’s so simple and I keep trying to find a reason why this isn’t the way to go but can’t. What I can’t figure out is why our leaders can’t see this. Are we missing something or are they? This must have been part of the discussion. I would really like to hear the rational for extending an allotment to each manufacturer. Was it because that was the way the hybrid incenties were structured? Is it because some foreign automobile manufacturers have facilities in congresspeople’s states?
+7
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:43 pm)The faster we get cars like the Volt on the road, the better. For the environment, for the economy and strategically, we need to stop funding our enemies in the world thru oil purchases. GM is a company that has never built anything in my life time I wanted to own, until now.
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:43 pm)To all the Michigan people expecting their Volts in February & March… this guy beat you to it!
“Lansing man first in Michigan to own Volt”
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011101270333
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:46 pm)#55
Works for me. +1
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:48 pm)In order to collect 8 billion per year very moderate fuel tax would be needed. Something like 1%. It would be nothing similar to Europe’s 100%.
+6
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:51 pm)koz,
There is no down side to this, the oil money doesn’t fund terrorists, it funds governments that sponsor terrorism. The USA has no friends in that oil bearing region, so why should our money go near them if we have any options to stop it. Natural gas and electric cars like the Volt could put those countries back into a position of trading oil for food and water, again. The rest of the world are on our heels development wise, so they will also be customers of GM and the Volt technology sooner than later as oil prices continue to rise.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:52 pm)Whenever this subject has come up w/people I know, I always volunteer to be the first person that will pay Soc Security & Medicare for the rest of my life, yet take no money from those programs. Soc Security is not sustainable IMO, and some generation is going to have to draw the line and say “we wont take the benefits”.
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:53 pm)Ironic timing, but just two days ago I had to renew my driver’s license and it turns out that one of the options (right beside organ donor status) was “party affiliation”. Since Penna has party specific primaries, it pays to be one or the other – and R, D, G(reen), and I(ndependent) were the only options. I changed from a D to an R. I’m actually an Independent, but they don’t even get to VOTE in the primaries here. Considered going Green, but I can still vote for their candidates in the elections proper, if they look good.
And yes, I’m an organ donor, right down to the skin, brain and cadaver. I’m pretty sure that my brain will be of scientific significance (lol).
I just had a related thought (odd, but true). Why doesn’t the govt subsidize organ donations? Obviously we are burying/burning perfectly good organs. Shouldn’t tax dollars be used to pay “the estate” for all those good working parts left over once the spirit has moved on? The greater good for the country is obvious! The blind and disabled would no longer be challenged and many who hadn’t yet, could be tax payers (many are already, but you get the point).
NOPE!
But I do think that a survivor should be able to profit from their sale (not sure weather a heart and lung would be “extra” or a discount). I guess it’d depend on the demand… JMO.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:53 pm)Agree with the critics. We spend far more securing oil. That includes tax breaks for oil companies, military operations in Iraq, arms deals/protection for the Saudis. This electric incentive is a drop in the bucket, and a needed shift in direction.
Side note: Is it just me, or is that the most badass look from Obama I’ve ever seen? About time.
-1
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:54 pm)A large % is foreign debt. I forget the exact %… if i get time I can wiki it.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:55 pm)Google “gao 320116″. Should be the first result. I was told it applies to all government facilities.
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (6:58 pm)Debt = the amount of money we owe
Deficit = the amount of money we go further into debt in a year
Surplus = the amount of money we pay off the debt in a year
Now let’s foget the total numbers because they’re really hard to relate to. Instead, let’s figure out our portion of the debt. Divide the total debt by the number of taxpayers. Thats $127,000. That’s our portion of the debt.
So if every taxpayer would just cough up an extra $127,000 in taxes, we would have no more national debt. What’s the problem?
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:00 pm)That assumes that the Prius could not have been successful on it’s merits. I think that it could have.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:04 pm)That would cover the INTEREST on the debt – for two days.
Be well,
Tagamet
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:05 pm)Well, I was kinda saving up for a new Volt….(g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:07 pm)I would guess the price would be the same (since they are breaking even), but the $350 lease wouldnt be there, and the demand would be significantly less. A lot of people will buy a $33,500 car. A lot less people will buy a $41K car. I would hope GM would still have received the GSB and had cash to keep the development program going for some time, but it would be hard to say if the program would continue permanently or at what capacity.
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:07 pm)I meant “whether”. Sorry to all the OCD’s out there.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:13 pm)The US Government subsidizes many things…rural electrification and rural telephone. Don’t forget the $2.5 Trillion Municipal Bond Market that cost Uncle Sam $billions each year as those securities pay federally tax exempt interest. Interest on US Treasury securities is exempt from state taxes so States lose $Billions each year also.
+8
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:14 pm)If the government would raise its gasoline tax by only 5 cents per gallon, there would be enough increased revenue to fund over 500,000 rebates of $12,500, every year.
It seems strange that gasoline prices can rise by 50 cents per gallon in just a few months with hardly a complaint, but if the government were to raise its tax by a nickel then all hell would break loose.
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:16 pm)Interesting thought. Do you remember when Ebay banned organ sales? Have you seen the movie “Repo Men”?
Currently i’m not an organ donor, but I haven’t totally made my mind up yet.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:17 pm)Dang! We owe other peeps too?
It’s starting to sound like my family. Yall owe dem here, yall owe dem over there, and yall odem folks waaaaay over there.
What happens when they all come collecting? I’m starting to think we don’t even own our country with all that debt. When they come collecting in our area they gonna loose $$$. With me, the kids & wife “Brittany Beers”, they gonna just keep going……
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:25 pm)koz,
Given GM’s dire fiscal situation prior to fielding the Volt, they would have sold the tech to someone who *would* produce it, given that they’d sunk a billion dollars into it’s development. I’ll bet Toyota would have been interested. Any BOD that didn’t would have been displaced.
My understanding is that there *is* a profit margin, however small, from day one. It may all be going to the dealers, but I know that they have a profit baked in. It’s a substantial expense for them to train people and keep a demo Volt on site, so I doubt that there would be much appetite for carrying them (and selling at MSRP) if there wasn’t. GM (even “govt motors”) wouldn’t be increasing their production numbers and accelerating their roll-out plan, if they were losing money on every Volt.
Eventually, economies of scale will kick in and likely be matched with battery improvements. At this point we can only hope that that happens before the tax credit clock runs out. Otherwise, the price would have to be *raised*. Now THAT would be an unfortunate unintended consequence.
Be well,
Tagamet
+13
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:30 pm)To those that think oil/gasoline aren’t subsidized all you have to do is turn on your television tonight and throughout the weekend to watch an entire government is toppled. That Mubarak and co. has held on so long is a testimony to the tens of billions in support that Egypt has received from the United States over the past couple of decades. Does anyone here think that support has come through the good will and kind hearts of congressmen and Presidents? No that support has come through so that we could ensure access through the Suez canal, and regional stability that’s enabled you clowns to drive around on cheap gas all these years.
You can further visit this page:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/
and learn about the Americans that have died so that you can fuel up on cheap subsidized gasoline. You can contemplate the 720 billion PER DAY that we spend in Iraq so that you can fuel up. You can contrast that DAILY COST of the Iraq war to the first year subsidy for ALL CHEVY VOLTS + NISSAN LEAFs and find that we spend more per day in Iraq to subsidize your need for oil than we will spend in all of 2011 subsidizing electric cars. Not a bad deal if you ask me.
You can also go here:
http://www.fallenpatriots.org
and assuming you can click through the site while keeping your eyes dry, learn about the sons and daughters of fallen service members that will have to struggle for the rest of their childhood because you wanted to fuel up on “cheap oil”.
So to those that would call for an end to subsidies that are playing a role in the effort to ramp up electricification of the American automobile, I say that’s fine, but let’s also call a spade a spade, recognize that oil is subsidized at a FAR FAR greater cost than these $7500 tax credits.
+3
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:30 pm)I could be wrong but i think China is the #1 treasury bond holder, with $1 trillion. I think their prez was over here sniffing around to see if we will be able to pay up. I can’t believe we wined & dined him like we did when we owe him $1 trillion. Should have just zapped some ramen noodles and said “We’ll pay you next month”.
+5
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:34 pm)The debt is financed by U.S. Treasury Bills, aka T-Bills. These are bought and sold on a regular basis. If people stop buying them, then the interest rate is raised to make them more desirable.
Bottom line: If China sells all their U.S. T-Bills, the interest rate on our debt would go sky-high, and a big chunk of our budget would just be paying interest. It could bankrupt the government. It would certainly cause a huge recession.
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:40 pm)Wiki on US debt.
The United States public debt is a frequently reported measure of the obligations of the United States federal government and is presented by the United States Treasury in two components and one total:
Debt held by the public, representing U. S. Treasury securities held by institutions or individuals outside the United States Government;
Intragovernmental holdings, representing U. S. Treasury securities held in accounts which are administered by the United States Government, such as the OASI Trust fund administered by the Social Security Administration; and
Total public debt outstanding, which is the sum of the above components.[1]
As of December 31, 2010, the “Total public debt outstanding” was $14.03 trillion and was 96.5% of fiscal year (FY) 2010′s (the closest comparable yearly range of U.S. measured production to calendar year 2010 known to date) annual gross domestic product (GDP) of $14.5 trillion, with the “Debt held by the Public” at approximately 64.5% of FY 2010 GDP ($9.39 Trillion) and “Intragovernmental holdings” standing at 32.0% of FY 2010 GDP ($4.63 Trillion).[1][2][3] Using 2009 figures, the total debt (86.1% of GDP) ranked 12th highest against other nations; using 2010 figures, the component “Debt held by the Public” (58.9% of GDP) ranked 36th
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:50 pm)pavers123,
Careful what you wish for. Egypt is in crisis as we speak. I’m pretty sure that I never suggested that we disengage from world politics. It’d definitely be a different world if we did.
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Jan 28th, 2011 (7:52 pm)correction – 720 million per day for the Iraq Oil War. Nevertheless, the Iraq War Oil Subsidy costs our grand children more in ONE DAY than all of tose first year $7500 Volt and Leaf subsidies combined, the latter of which actually makes an effort towards neutralizing the middle east as a key player in our energy economy.
Jan 28th, 2011 (8:01 pm)From what I hear, it really doesn’t hurt. Seriously though, (if it’s not too personal) what are the reasons for *not* donating organs and anything else of use. I know that they can culture skin for grafts for burn victims, but donated skin works well and is a lot more efficient time-wise (read suffering).
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (10:05 pm)Two hours since the last post. Score one for the persistent old fart (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
/night
Jan 28th, 2011 (10:08 pm)Sorry, I couldn’t wait to read through all the comments on this thread before commenting. I read a post whereby a person commented that they couldn’t plug in at their job(at a Naval base) and that discouraged them from being an early adopter of plugin tech. That is a huge point! If the Obama admin. wanted to make a statement about E.V. technology, offering charging stations at all federal buildings and parking garages as well as mandating federal vehicle fleets to adopt the technology, that would drive demand as well as offering incentive to employees to embrace the effort. ICE engines got a leg up because of two world wars and the “portability” of fossil fuels whereas electric vehicles had relatively few quantum leaps to help drive people toward electrification. NOW we are faced with a renewed interest in electrification of the automobile mainly due to advances in the batteries. GM has recently announced licenses with several companies to vastly increase power density in batteries that are already very potent and yet our government has yet to offer realistic charging options. As a D.C. area resident, I can tell you that this town is completely driven by the govt. and the jobs it offers. Give employees free or low cost charging at parking meters and or garages and availibility of HOV priviliges and you have just sounded a trumpet that even the deaf could feel!!! COME ON PEOPLE!!!
Jan 28th, 2011 (10:20 pm)Please point out exactly where I said oil should be subsidized? Or even where I said our immense thirst for it shouldn’t be curbed?
I get it. Most Volt supporters don’t. It’s an absurdly large taxpayer subsidy that gets little real effect. If you want to reduce oil imports, there are far cheaper ways to do it.
-2
Jan 28th, 2011 (10:32 pm)…or maybe they do eventually gain wide acceptance and due to long term vision over fear of short term profit and loss reporting, Japan gets that market too, like TV’s, flat screens and hybrids. Leaving GM and Ford with reliance on fickle what-did-you-do-for-me last quarter investors and creditors behind – again.
Sure no subsidies at all would be great. But we live in the real world where US products and workers will have to compete with others world wide.
+4
Jan 28th, 2011 (11:25 pm)Just read your post about more electric car incentives. You have a picture of President Obama in the driver seat of a Chevy Volt.
Then you have an ad just below it that states “Repeal Obama” ” Vote here now.”
Is this is your practice to now have political statements and ads with your posts??? If so I am quite disappointed.
Perhaps the group that runs your blog is responsible for this “over-site”
We already have too many not well thought out political statements on this site already.
+1
Jan 28th, 2011 (11:34 pm)Should the DOE give a grant to the Pentagon to encourage and subsidize EV charging?
+5
Jan 29th, 2011 (12:35 am)==================================
The answer to that one is pretty easy, actually:
The poor would be screaming about why they have to pay more so that the rich people can buy a car.
The rich would be screaming that they already paid into political funds for the politicians, exactly so they would not have to pay any more taxes
And us in the middle, just don’t trust the Congress to spend the money wisely! And I wonder why that is?
They won’t talk about a balanced budget.
They won’t consider banning earmark spending.
They think a line item veto is a terrible idea.
Term limits are not even on the table.
Tort reform? HAHAHAHAHA!
JMHO
Jan 29th, 2011 (12:57 am)And if you want to see enough numbers to really make your head spin, take a look at this:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
+4
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:55 am)I have just spent a very long time reading and rereading every comment on this thread regarding the wisdom of subsidies for Volt purchases. I think a point was missed.
Tagamet has argued that the Volt would stand on its own without the subsidies. With all due respect, I have to disagree. The Volt would not even exist today without subsidies 10 times larger than $7500 rebates. The Volt would not exist because GM would not exist.
A rebate for the purchaser is only a very small part of the price paid by the taxpayer. No one has mentioned, in this thread, the many billions of dollars poured in to all the automakers just one year ago to keep them afloat. Whether you call that money a bailout, a long term investment, or debt written off as part of a government sponsored bankruptcy proceeding, all that money could properly be called a subsidy to the manufacturers.
The Volt was front and center as a reason why your taxpayer dollars and mine, we Canadians paid proportionately more than Americans, have already been spent. The promise of a future American based electrified vehicle fleet was very strongly suggested as a reason for spending all that money.
You could argue that that money had to be spent to prevent a far deeper recession. If the Peak Oil theorists are right then we have only delayed a crisis that could be much more severe. In that case, the only thing of value to come out of spending all those many billions of dollars would be that electric car programme lead by the Volt.
Is a subsidy ever wise or well directed? I don’t know. It’s a topic that obviously gets its share of debates. I do think one has been handed out, either by accident or intent, that far overshadows the one being offered to early adopters of these cars.
It’s late and I’m getting very tired. I hope to God that what I’ve written tonight still makes sense to me in the morning.
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (6:50 am)CaptJackSparrow,
I think its because that exported oil comes into Canada and Canada exports into the U.S. its a question of where pipelines begin and end and distribution.
+2
Jan 29th, 2011 (7:53 am)Overcoming a long list of problems is what you do when starting a business. Like I said, relying on government subsidies & blaming others is the norm. I’d call that apathy.
Why be afraid? Failure is just a lesson in overcoming a problem on the way to being successful!!!
Daring to think outside the (governmental box!) will reward you greatly. In my experience anyways.
+5
Jan 29th, 2011 (8:13 am)In the end, the bailout of GM will probably cost the taxpayer nothing.
GM has already paid back all of the loans, and the government sold most of its stock in GM at the IPO. If GM’s stock price goes up over the next 1-2 years, as expected, then the government will sell all of it’s remaining shares. It’s possible the government could even make a profit on the deal, or they may lose a little, but this would only be a couple of percentage points on the total. In other words, it will basically be a break-even.
Now let’s look at what would have happened if the government didn’t finance GM’s bankruptcy. GM would have dissolved. That would have caused many parts suppliers to go bankrupt as well. These suppliers also make parts for Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc., so those companies would have had severe shortages in 2009, which would have led to much lower car sales. Ford probably would have gone bankrupt. Toyota and Honda would have needed massive assistance from Japan. An additional 1 million auto workers would have have become unemployed. This would have caused another 1-2 million indirect job losses, due to decreased demand for other products and services. The recession would have become a depression. And unemployment payments by the government would have soared, costing taxpayers much more than any bailout.
.
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (8:39 am)The government isn’t trying to box anyone in. In fact, it’s just the opposite.
Obama understands that small business thinks outside the box. He talks about innovation regularly. That’s why he cut taxes on small businesses eight times over the last two years. He’s counting on that to create jobs. Two thirds of the jobs in this country are in small businesses.
.
+3
Jan 29th, 2011 (8:44 am)Like I’ve said… there is no way we should be giving foreign companies our tax dollars while they put huge tariffs on our cars, trucks anything we try to sell in their markets.
I say… tax them just like they tax us…. and you will not have to subsidize electric cars.
Level the playing field and GM and FORD will have enough money to do their own research.
Where is thiw 9bil for battery research going? overseas? believe me… the Japanese Germans Koreans are doing business in the US for one thing… to suck as much money out of our economy as possible while keeping us out of their economy.
+4
Jan 29th, 2011 (9:02 am)Oh my!
What would my wife do when I am leaning over the edge of the Grand Canyon? Would she say “Oh, what a beautiful sight”, or “Oh, if I just nudge him a little, just think how much I could get for that liver and heart”.
Lots of good discussion today. I cannot add anything more to what has already been discussed. But I will say that I am torn on the EV subsidies, and would lean more towards the “let me decide what to do with my hard earned dollar, cause ole Mr. Govt tends to be a bad investment maker, in general”.
Jan 29th, 2011 (9:04 am)STOP! I want to keep my head sufficiently buried in the sand.
Jan 29th, 2011 (9:05 am)Has President Obama visited the EEStor factory? And was he taken out for lobster dinner?
NPNS
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (9:13 am)Who’s that guy driving Terri Quigley?
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (9:55 am)As usual, the sound byte drives the discussion. The term “EV subsidies” implies something permanent that will increase government’s role in the industry.
But nobody in the government is talking about that. They’re talking about changing the tax credit to an up-front rebate, like the cash-for-clunkers program. They’re also talking about changing this rebate from the first 200K cars per manufacturer to the first 500K cars.
The whole idea is to get the ball rolling. By definition, it’s temporary. Once plug-in sales volume has reached critical mass, manufacturing costs will come down, and the rebate won’t be necessary. That’s exactly how the tax credit worked for hybrids. If the Prius didn’t have a tax credit initially, it may not have become so popular, and GM wouldn’t have been driven to leapfrog with the Volt.
As I said above, if you take the national debt and divide by the number of taxpayers, you get $127,000. That’s our portion of the national debt. It’s a big number. Our children will be paying off this debt. It’s a long term problem, and it demands a long term solution. I believe the best solution is to get off of foreign oil. That’s the only way we’ll pay off the debt. The tax credit/rebate is a relatively small government expense that will accelerate energy independence, and that will bring down the debt.
+3
Jan 29th, 2011 (10:05 am)For all the Republicans out there, how about we just cut ALL subsidies for energy? All of them.
Now that there are a few real EVs out there and Peak Oil is right around the corner, I feel EVs have enough of a foot-hold to stand on their own.
Of course that means an almost complete halt of nuclear power plants and many small Oil companies. Are you willing to do that as well?
Just let the country go the way it wants to, by natural selection.
I love how Republicans talk so big about health care and education being so bad yet are OK with our military, police, oil subsidies, nuclear subsidies, farm subsidies or anything else that helps their members.
Why not go back to basics and cut everything? Just stop the government and run the U.S. like it was when we were just formed? Everyone has their own protection. If someone hurts one of your loved ones you can go out and seek revenge. That is how humanity worked for 99% of our existence. It worked fine and got us to a population of several hundred million. Why be so soft and even have a government? What, can’t protect your family yourself? Be real men!
Sarcasm aside, I feel we humans can go that route or a more planned route. The only question is – how much planning?! How about set a percentage of our GDP for government operations and work within that budget and nothing more?
And make it that only an act of Congress and God would be able to change that level of spending.
Sure, it would be a massive change and probably cause horrendous unintended consequences but being able to shut up those that keep saying our government spends too much would be worth going to hell and back.
Ironically, it looks like the natural selection way is where the world is heading. Yes, it will be as ugly as watching lions feed on their prey but we will be just fine and end up with a population that Mother Earth can comfortably sustain.
That fossil fuel era was a blast!
Jan 29th, 2011 (10:27 am)Here’s a Win-Win. Volts for people who can afford them, more traded-in Prius’ for those who can’t.
+4
Jan 29th, 2011 (10:37 am)I’d go further than that. I would flat out eliminate the subsidy if the vehicle is not at least assembled in the US. The Asians will be laughing all the way to the bank if we give them incentive to sell cars here. They will crush is (once again) with our own (borrowed) money.
Real “free enterprise” does not exist anywhere in the world, at least not on a large scale. The Japanese, for instance, did not make their island nation a powerhouse of industry by just “competing.” Their government and “Japan Inc.” stacked the deck in their own favor.
The Chinese did not “compete” their way to being a world power either. They rigged their own currency in order to sucker the US into buying all their falsely cheap goods, ruining much of our industry and putting millions of our own taxpayers out of work.
I think Obama sees this giant scam and is taking steps to correct it. The State of Michigan will once again be a world leader in the car industry if we do this right.
Jan 29th, 2011 (10:43 am)You seem a bit over over confident on who would be the slaughterers and slaughterees.
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (11:02 am)I hope everyone is remembering how the tax credit works. It comes from the buyers taxes not anyone else’s. If you pay enough in tax you will be credited for what you pay in that year, and if you make enough you will pay some taxes. In other words it does not come from any other citizen paying taxes. Yes, I know, that person my not contribute anything to the other services in that particular tax year, but hey, corporations get that type of break, why can’t joe citizen get a break that contributes to a specific goal, the reduction in dependence on imported oil.
P
+4
Jan 29th, 2011 (11:10 am)Not to beat a dead horse — I’d NEVER do that (Ha ha) — but we should be clear that the EV “subsidy” technically falls into the category of what is called a “tax expenditure”. It’s a credit, so as a taxpayer you pay the tax and then you are able to get some or all of it back. This is no different than the tax expenditure that goes to oil and gas companies, except that their number is a whole lot larger than the number available for EVs. Also it is no different than something like the mortgage tax deduction.
Personally I’m not a fan of tax expenditures, In fact it would be a great idea to get rid of all of them in exchange for lower rates. However, claims that people receiving EV rebates are getting taxpayer money — or in a few cases claims by posters here that people getting EV credits are using “their money” as if there is an income transfer going on — are wild and fanciful. What is happening is that people getting EV credits are simply keeping more of THEIR money.
This is BTW one of the great inconsistencies of the Fox News Network and other right wing talking heads. The talking heads there change their tune depending on whether they like the credit or not. If they support the credit (for whatever reason) then the credit is “letting taxpayers keep more of their money in their own pockets”, which is presumably good because taxpayers can spend their own money better than the government. If they don’t like the subsidy then, as they said when castigating the guy who got the first Leaf, the recipient is taking money out of the pockets of other taxpayers, which presumable is a bad thing since it’s one step removed from stealing. But of course we all know that consistency, logic, and clarity of mind are hobgoblins of little minds.
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (11:12 am)Politically, I am solidly Independent. My mailbox is stuffed with mailings from 4 or 5 political parties. And I give each one a look over.
Why doesn’t our government cut all funding of oil, coal, and gas development. Pull back all troops guarding foreign oil fields. And cut welfare payments to needy American’s by 50% per check. In return Big Brother will quadruple all wind and solar development. And provide free electricity to welfare families. And $.05kwh electricity to everyone else.
Sound good to you? Is this what we want America to be?
Oh, by the way. We’re not going to use money in this country anymore. You will have an ID card linked to your bank account (which by the way was just bailed out with your taxes). All transactions will be taxed at 8%. This 8% will be automatically deposited in the Better Way of Life in America Program.
Sound good to you? Is this what we want America to be?
The BWLAP will support free medical plans for all “poor” American’s. “Poor” being those earning under $500k per year. A government doctor will see you. Decide on options and time frames for treatment. And present this data to the BWLAP for review. The government will tap the BWLAP and depending on available reserves, provide care appropriate to the patients need, age, and earning value to society.
Sound good to you? Is this what we want America to be?
Ice cream will contain no fat.
Sound good to you? Is this what we want America to be?
You may drive a gasoline powered vehicle if you can provide evidence that it is used to earn more than $60k per year in wages. And that these wages are taxed at 8%.
Sound good to you? Is this what we want America to be?
Your home may have only one bathroom. Per Water Conservation Task Force.
Sound good to you? Is this what we want America to be?
NPNS
Jan 29th, 2011 (11:31 am)wolfdoctor,
Because once the government got hold of all those nickles they’d likely spend them on something else rather than what they were originally intended for.
Jan 29th, 2011 (11:40 am)They’ll talk about balancing the budget but enact irresponsible tax cuts and a prescription drug benefit we can’t pay for
They think a line item veto is a good idea when someone from their party is in power but otherwise it’s a Nyet
They promise to only run for two terms but then run for ten
Tax reform? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
+2
Jan 29th, 2011 (12:04 pm)My plan is to ignore tax incentives debate entirely, and, instead, design an energy neutral new home with some really brilliant grad and undergrad students someday soon. The goal is to use the home equity I’ve built up during the last twenty years, and, in about two to four more years depending on the market and technologies of all kinds coming into practicable use, strive for a way to help all seniors have a minimalist set of floor plans for the lowest cost of living possible with various floor plans and layouts to keep them as financially self-sufficient for as long as possible. This includes an appropriately-priced EREV, of course at $30k.
(The goal is to develop maintenance-free plans of packages in concrete, for around $100,000, not including the EREV.)
I’m thinking of naming the projects “Z Award Projects”. (All non-profit, but utilizing sheer brain power from groups of dedicated green builders, solar power pros, etc.)
No money involved with the award, but just the recognition to the designers for their creativities, which ought to tend to position them for conventional contracting as the goal for them. (A win, win, win, win set of outcomes).
Jan 29th, 2011 (12:34 pm)Not to worry, it still makes sense. I’ve repeatedly been against the GM bailout as well. The Volt tech would have survived as an asset. I’ve also mentioned that I may have been wrong about opposing the bailout of GM. I remain opposed to it in principle, but I don’t have a good feeling about what may have happened without it. JMO.
Be well,
Tagamet
+4
Jan 29th, 2011 (12:36 pm)Employ all those listless young men by building me another pyramid. Or a condo made of stona.
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (12:41 pm)Naw, that fall would damage the “products”. (lol).
Again, I say “What a wonderfully civil discussion!” Only here on gm-volt.com, would you find this.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 29th, 2011 (12:51 pm)Help me out here. I’m hearing two things.
The tax credit is good because it’s temporary and will jump-start the Volt to mass production to lower price
and
We’re in so much debt that we each owe $127K which will be inherited by our grandchildren, so that’s bad.
My first thought is that the Prius would have been successful without adding to our debt. So would the Volt (though now we’ll never know).
I agree that we have way too much debt, but I don’t think that picking winners to support is the govt’s purview. I’m not saying that it doesn’t feel good to support using less oil. I’m just saying that a great product like the Volt would have been spectacularly successful (though at a slower rate) without props. JMO.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 29th, 2011 (1:05 pm)When did you start watching Fox news???? (LOL). Methinks you either don’t watch enough of it, or you are being unfair. They consistently rail against the Volt and LEAF credits, and they are VERY clear on the need to make painful cuts to entitlements. Cavuto has *repeatedly* had people from the fiscal responsibility commission on his show to talk about exactly that. Maybe MSNBC has them on as well and I missed it.
BTW, wasn’t Lyle interviewed on Fox about the Volt?
If the govt’s bills remain the same, and 200,000 people spend $7500 less in taxes, who pays the bills?
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (1:06 pm)DaveG,
You lost me here. Call it what you will, the govt is subsidizing EV’s by paying OUR tax money for those who buy one. So, if we call it govt “assitance”, would that make it better?
+2
Jan 29th, 2011 (1:13 pm)To #145- I love your sarcasm, and love the underlying truths…subsidies are a fact of modern life and each of us will defend those with fierce conviction. We either support old technologies (oil) etc, or we support new and cleaner technologies. Try to guess which political parties support what…The way our Country is splitting, the silent majority should start speaking out a bit more.
Jan 29th, 2011 (1:14 pm)Dave K.,
Boy, you really had me until you got to the ONE BATHROOM part (lol).
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (1:15 pm)PANTS ON FIRE!
So, if the good ole govt says “Ok, anyone with brown eyes are taxed less than others cause we like you, but everyone else pays the higher rate.” So, now we have to actually raise the tax on the other “non-brown eyes”, so we can make up the difference, but look, the brown eyes are just getting to keep THEIR money. That’s fair, right?
Sometimes the simple equations of money allow you to best see through all the BS!
Come on Don, you gotta be kidding, right?
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (1:17 pm)Wolfdoctor says: “If the government would raise its gasoline tax by only 5 cents per gallon, there would be enough increased revenue to fund over 500,000 rebates of $12,500, every year.”
With rebates now in place, the best thing that gov’t's can do right now in order to promote electrification of the automobile, is to pass a “floating” gasoline tax. This could be used to fix the price of gas at the pumps at around say $3.50/gallon, which would be the figure that Bob Lutz and others think will spur a paradigm shift. It would also generate vast amounts of revenue that would more than offset the costs of the rebate programs.
But don’t hold your breath waiting for a new gasoline tax. I’ve heard that Americans don’t like to see their taxes go up.
P.S. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for cap-and-trade legislation either…
Sincerely, George, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada…go Volt!!
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (1:24 pm)ROTFLMAO! HEY! Let’s keep it civil! (lol) That’s precious.
Made my day. Only on gm-volt.com.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 29th, 2011 (1:47 pm)Will it still taste good?
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:14 pm)China
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:23 pm)Well *that’s* darn nice if them! We ought to all send them a really nice Thank-you card.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:23 pm)Isn’t this EXACTLY the problem? They do rail about Volt and Leaf credits, but can you tell me when they’ve railed about the tax credits for oil and gas companies? The latter have cost about 100000X more than the former. My point is that they’re entirely selective about what credits are “good” and which ones are “bad” though in truth they are the same thing. They’re also either stupid or intellectually dishonest (depends on the commentator) when describing tax credits for EVs as payment from other taxpayers and tax credits for other things which they support (because those industries support the Republican Party) as letting people keep some of their money.
We can make this personal. I paid cash for my house so I don’t have a mortgage. My personal view is that all of those people who take a mortgage deduction against their income can kiss my a$$ if they don’t think I’ll happily take the credits for EVs. It’s my tax money. I paid it. And I’m sick and tired of paying for their profligate spending on houses they can’t afford. (Tongue partially planted in cheek — I don’t feel that way about their mortgages but the principle is right).
We can make this political. Obama has proposed dramatically cutting corporate tax rates and eliminating all the tax rebates for various businesses. That’s a very good and sound proposal and one which economists, including conservative economists, have argued for. Are we going to see a stampede of Republicans (or Democrats but Republicans make the point more clearly) rushing to support this proposal? Are you going to see Fox News or your friend Neil Cavuto supporting it? In your dreams. Republicans are not going to support this because enacting tax rebates for various industries in exchange for political contributions is how they fund their political campaigns and stay in power.
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:23 pm)#109
Maybe, but not nearly as soon. Which is the point, IMHO.
+2
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:26 pm)#114
Yeah, how about home ownership? Anybody want to give up their mortgage interest deduction? Or the deduction for property taxes? +1
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:27 pm)That’s why they are called Faux News.
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:38 pm)#145
Alas, I can only agree. +1
+2
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:41 pm)The problem Dave is that on the one hand your’e probably happily sucking on the government teat and on the other complaining about others that want to. You no doubt get health insurance through your employer. That should be treated as income. But you don’t have to count it as income. IOW you are getting a tax break. So if the tax break is good for you why shouldn’t some poor guy get a tax break as well? Why not get rid of your medical tax break and give all this money to people buying EVs? Do you have ANY idea how much you suck off the teat? Well in 2008 it was $188 BILLION. That my friend will buy a hell of a lot of EVs. In fact it would provide subsidies for 25 MILLION EVs EVERY YEAR.
How about a mortgage? Do you have one of those? That gives you a tax break as well. How much of a tax break is that? Well the estimate is $131 BILLION. That would provide tax rebates for 18 MILLION EVs FOR EVERY YEAR.
My point is that there isn’t any reason why you should you get this tax break when some poor guy who doesn’t have employer paid health benefits or who rents doesn’t get one. Our mothers may have told us we’re special but we’re not. What I see is that everyone sees their tax break as fair and reasonable and other people’s tax breaks are horrible perversions which will lead to a terrible America.
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:48 pm)Nothing religious. Just not comfortable w/the idea. Eventually I may just say, I don’t care, but right now, the idea of someone else using/studying a part of me kinda bothers me. I want to be cremated when I die as well.
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:51 pm)The point is you won’t have the option to eat good tasting ice cream. Government is overly involved in the lives of We The People.
I don’t know what the answer is. Each year we look at this situation with fresh eyes and vote in a new generation of clones. We ask them to represent us with their votes. Yet they continue to fold under pressure from lobbyists and the allure of a quick buck. Handing out our money to insurance companies? Taking tax money to bail out people buying $600k homes while earning $40k per year? These folks were sure they could make a profit on renting the properties. But guess what? They lost big time. Until WE bailed them out with OUR tax money?
I look at this through the eyes of an honest hard working tax paying family man. Who’s getting the shaft? I am. But why? Anyone have an answer?
Is this simply because I’m an American who needs to work harder and think less? What happened to the beautiful schools that were promised when I voted in the lotteries? Oh, I get it, the people who promised this have retired with full benefits.
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:56 pm)He’s right that the government has a poor record of picking winners and losers. (Not sure it’s any worse than investors BTW). However, that doesn’t mean it follows that his prescription of eliminating tax rebates is right. Rather than a tax credit for EVs you could have a tax credit for cars getting over 200 MPGe using the DOE CAFE calculation for the number of kWh in a gallon of gas (this gives a huge bonus for not using gas, which would be the point). This would open the door and let any number of competing technologies have a fair crack at the market, get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers, but still speed up the process of weaning our transportation system off oil.
Probably a pipe dream which has zero chance of political survival. Take the EV tax credit. It works perfectly for the Volt. Is this by chance or does it have something to do with the Chairman of the Committee which wrote the provisions being married to the chief lobbyist for GM? Just asking. LOL
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:57 pm)The day you do that, oil will become so expensive that the economy will break down. You think the actual economic crisis is bad, wait for the shock. And I’m not even mentioning the food subsidies : how much would cust a bowl of cereal or a juicy steak (or chicken, or …) without agricultural subsidies ?
In reality, the entire system is like an ocean liner. You can’t turn it around in a few months (probably not even in years), you can’t stop it either. All you can hope for is to gently turn to a new direction over time.
Jan 29th, 2011 (2:58 pm)Call it what it is: A temporary tax credit. If they succeed in making it up front, at the time of sale, then call it a temporary government rebate.
The term “government assistance” implies something more permanent. The tax credit / rebate is temporary, currently for the first 200,000 plug-ins per manufacturer. They’re talking about the possibility of adjusting that to be the first 500,000 vehicles, but that’s probably only a couple of years more. In the scheme of things, that’s not a long time.
+2
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:03 pm)Stepping into this debate is like walking out into the freeway! But I do want to chime in and say this discussion between fellows I respect is very much the same debate raging in D.C. .
I think Don C is right and Jim I is right also. It’s a balancing act that has to be heavy-sided towards cutting spending to the level of every one of us feeling a bit of a pinch. No different than budgeting at home after a too excessive spending spree at Christmas where everything’s been put on the plastic. Just cutting military spending isn’t going to right our ship – or just subsidizing EV battery and vehicle production won’t either.
Some of us have thought that if we just vote for that popular guy or a certain party – everything will work out OK…It’s time we Americans truly take back our country and I’m not alone – I feel it’s why the
Tea Party took off – it’s a message that resonates….and why typical politicians wanted to pigeonhole it ASAP as some kind of movement by nuts.
I think this may be the first time I’ve ever disagreed with Jim I, but I’ll have to lean a bit towards what Don is saying but for the reason that an energy policy centered upon domestically produced product is central to the survival of our union. Many today have a too simplistic view of what it will take to solve our plethora of difficult problems in the USA. Our country is smart and diverse enough to come up with the solutions. There isn’t one straight and true way, such as “just cut taxes and reduce spending”. That all sounds good in speeches and is neat and tidy for soundbites to get re-elected, but it’s a combination of changes and policies that will see us through to the strong, independent and wealthy superpower we have been for decades.
One major issue I feel BOTH political parties are clueless about is illegal immigration , especially from South of our border. In the early days Republicans turned a blind eye to the subject since they all had a housekeeper named Juanita and a gardener named Jose at home. Then, when at election time savvy investigators exposed these facts, the Republicans started taking a firm( ish ) stance on beefing up security and dealing with illegals in our midst. Then sudddenly the Democrats realized the sheer numbers of Latins in our country meant that if they could corner their vote, they would surely have a majority in both houses and control the White House, all in the name of helping the “underprivelaged”… and so the baloney of politics goes on while our country and it’s founding principles are going down the drain.
I stand on the side of taxpayer subsidies for green energy to a point. The main reason I go to this site regularly is due to my firm belief that energy independence will make a HUGE difference in our national security – and clean the air we breathe. The faster we convert our transportation sector ( hydrogen fuel cell talk here is rediculours ) the better, and a jumpstart will be needed to turn the mainstream corner – buying an EV or plug in and investing in it tax-wise is part of that “pinch” I mentioned earlier IMHO.
THEY’RE PUMPIN’ OUT THE VOLTS! ,
James
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:03 pm)DonC,
That’s a really humorous post DonC, but I didn’t hear an answer to the “If 200,000 people pay $7500. less in taxes, and the bills stay the same (and they are actually going UP), who pays the bills?
I’ve only heard our president talk about tax reforms which yield the same number of dollars for the govt. Maybe I missed something. I have yet to hear him say anything specific about serious spending cuts (other than earmarks which are insignificant, but at least a start). My buddy Cavuto pleads *daily* for entitlement program cuts. I’m pretty sure that you could find clips of his rants on You-tube or (gasp) FBN. Have you read the report by the fiscal responsibility commission? It’s a good read. Social Security starts on page 48. Some of the recs are ones I’d have thought you’d like – like increased taxing of wealthier people.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:11 pm)*Everything* should be “on the table”. JMO.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:16 pm)By “them” I assume that you mean *all* of the people in congress. I’m for term-limits and a balanced budget. Yes the cuts are going to hurt – everyone, but what’s the alternative? Winning The Future? Please. Not without significant cuts.
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:20 pm)No it does not. Govt assistance is actually more applicable. So, if we get to 500,000 and then they say, lets make it an even 1,000,000, then what do we call it? Maybe a “Extended Temporary Permanently Extensible Rebate” or ETPER for those who enjoy a good acronym, like our government.
Bottom line is they are SUBSIDIZING EV’s. Is this the right thing to do? In my opinion, we the tax payers are in a better position to make EV’s successful w/o putting the govt in control.
+2
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:24 pm)That pretty much sums it up. Thanks.
Be well,
Tagamet
+3
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:30 pm)Surely we all know a 3 to 10 cent raise in the gasoline tax is the answer to many of our current problems.
Just as certainly, it’ll never happen, as a gas tax is political suicide. It just aint gonna happen. As the current Assistant Secretary of Transportation said recently, ” there is no appetite today in Washington to raise the gas tax”. Anyone who supports a gas tax will be murdered in an election, so nobody right or left has the kahunas to raise the issue. The only outside chance would be an outgoing president who has nothing to lose since his term limit is up.
One positive note was the call to end subsidies to oil companies made by Obama during his SOU speech a few days back. This, plus tax breaks for buying EVs can make a significant change in the status quo. Isn’t it tragic though how it’s mainly our elected officials’ personal concerns that are at the base of 80% of all our national crisis?! Think about it. They are hired by us ( or maybe they’re hired by hugely funded politcal party machines ) to “serve” us, but we get lip service while they get the best healthcare our money can buy them – all the while the mantra during the single-payer gov’mt healthcare push was that ” maybe perhaps the American citizen will get close to, or some of – the benefits government workers get currently in their health insurance plans.
It’s pathetic.
By a huge majority the American people do not understand what most of us here do, which is that a tax on gasoline can pay off a lot of our debt, and also pave the way to energy independence, cleaner air, a better economy fueled by sustainable resources and quite possibly putting a dent in the warming of our atmosphere and changing of our weather patterns.
THEY’RE PUMPING OUT THE VOLTS! ,
James
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:34 pm)Bingo. +100 if I could.
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:43 pm)* 3-10 cent hike in the current per gallon tax.
James
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:43 pm)I wouldn’t bet on that.
+3
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:50 pm)Josh is in fact referring to a GAO decision letter (most definitely not a new Federal law) posted at http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/320116.htm in response to an inquiry from the Architect of the Capitol about whether appropriated funds could be used to install EV charging stations on the Capitol grounds for members of Congress and Congressional employees to use in recharging privately owned EVs.
Although the Architect noted that employees could be asked to reimburse the Government for recharging costs, the GAO’s formal position is that employees’ commuting costs are personal, not official (i.e., Government), expenses. It concludes that “This [recharging] benefit would be akin to providing fuel for personal vehicles.” The GAO goes on to cite precedents about the Government not defraying Federal employees’ commuting costs, including providing shuttle buses from parking areas. All of this is a typically cautious, narrowly parsed GAO interpretation of past practice that boils down to “Any Government expense not explicitly permitted is prohibited.”
As plausible as this reasoning sounds, another precedent turns it on its head: Governments at all levels routinely provide free or reduced-cost parking for their employees’ personal vehicles. What’s the distinction? Building parking lots and garages clearly makes it possible for government agencies to function with a commuting workforce, and you can be sure that the proper “appropriated funds” were used for construction. Private businesses follow the same logic in supplying parking facilities. So the solution to getting Federal-agency charging stations seems to that allowed by the GAO itself: “Congress, of course, may authorize agencies to use appropriations for expenses that would otherwise be considered personal in nature.” You can be sure that this legislation will become a newly-discovered priority the first time that a Senator or Congressman/woman can’t recharge his or her EV at the Capitol! Hope that this info helps.
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:52 pm)I gave DonC a + for that part too.
I think that we’ll know more after the 2012 elections. I believe that the climate is finally right to get some of the tough decisions made.
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Jan 29th, 2011 (3:58 pm)I have never received any tax breaks, or any form of government money. I take the standard deduction on my taxes. I pay for my own healthcare which I never use (actually thinking about opting out and just going w/catastrophic coverage). My tax dollars pay for other peoples kids.
As a taxpaying healthy single white male w/no kids, do I feel like i’m getting screwed? No. My taxes are required for society to function. A $7500 credit to help our country move to electricity is a good investment of my tax $. I’d also support a gas tax. I don’t like the mad max scenario where nobody pays taxes and we live in the wild west gripping our guns.
Jan 29th, 2011 (4:11 pm)Time for a new post
+3
Jan 29th, 2011 (4:14 pm)kdawg,
Thanks for the reply. It’s a very personal decision, and one not made lightly. I just hate the thought of working parts being wasted. I was going to be cremated, but maybe by then they will have a Volt out with a diesel range extender. Once that happens I’d rather my wife had me rendered to bio-diesel and used in the VOLT! (g) That way she’d get some more mileage out of me (lol).
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 29th, 2011 (4:24 pm)I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it’s not an “either/or” choice. Besides, in Mad Max there WAS no govt to pay taxes TO. And while we’re gripping stuff, don’t forget your Bible.
Congrats on not needing any direct govt funds. Our family is Blessed that way too. When my son-in-law lost work, they moved in with us for a year until he could get back on his feet. It made our little home REALLY cozy, but he didn’t need unemployment. They are now back on their feet and paying taxes.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (4:28 pm)+1, but I just checked and this is the only hand we have to play. I do think that everyone who has an opinion has gotten it on record – and SO darn civilly! Seriously – only on gm-volt.com.
BBL, WTF, LOL,
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 29th, 2011 (4:37 pm)Sounds good at face value. Will be no problem collecting it. Where will the tax premium be spent? Is there really any way of knowing?
NPNS
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (5:18 pm)“Pleading daily” for entitlement cuts isn’t the same thing as pleading daily for cutting tax breaks for oil and gas companies (or any number of other companies). Everyone agrees the budget should be balanced. Everyone also agrees the budget should be balanced on the backs of the “other guy”. Cavuto is just feeding the second of these ideas and has simply become part of the problem. Are you seriously contending that telling people who aren’t in favor of entitlements that entitlements should be cut is either brave or original? Where I’m from it’s called “preaching to the choir”. When Cavuto starts “pleading daily” that capital gains and ordinary income rates should be the same — which is inarguably the economically the right thing — then he’ll be part of the solution.
The political reality is this: Unless the Republicans agree to cut Defense and close tax loopholes the Democrats won’t agree to cut Entitlements, and vice versa. More to the point, politically speaking Republicans have to propose Defense cuts and closing tax loopholes and Democrats have to propose Entitlement cuts. The reason for this is that voters want a free lunch and while they want a balanced budget they don’t want to pay higher taxes and they don’t want to lose their tax breaks. It’s as simple as that.
As for Obama not proposing tax increases but only arguing for closing loopholes and lowering rates, this goes back to YOUR argument that the government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. Tax breaks is the prototypic example of government picking winners and losers. If you think government is bad at picking, then there is a huge benefit to eliminating tax breaks in return for lower rates and an even playing field. A few posts ago you thought it was a bad idea for the government to pick winners and losers. Now you seem to be saying it’s OK. You need to make up your mind.
I’ll also say one thing which too many people seem to have forgotten: You cannot cut your way to prosperity. In the short run cutting spending is less important than growing the economy, and if cutting spending is too abrupt it can seriously hinder economic growth.
The structural debit has to be dealt with, but so far I haven’t seen a serious proposal for getting from Point A to Point B. The “Fiscal Responsibility Commission” which you’re citing said entitlement cuts are one part of the puzzle. The other parts are cuts in Defense and and end to subsidies for oil and gas companies, subsidies to agribusiness, and an end to the mortgage interest deduction. I’m OK with all these things. What I’m not OK with is the Cavuto approach of picking one of the things that “your side” doesn’t like and claiming that cutting this is the answer to the budget problem.
+3
Jan 29th, 2011 (6:12 pm)I’m not sure how or why you are so confused about what I “think”, but what you have posted here is so far from reality that I can’t just “let it”. For starters, I’m *not* in favor of the govt picking winners and/or losers through subsidies. You have somehow expanded that thought to “everyone” wants the budget balanced on the backs of the other guy? You throw the word “everyone” around like a Democrat. There are a *lot* of people who disagree with that – including myself. Cavuto IS preaching to a choir, and the choir is singing fiscal responsibility. Do you really watch Cavuto or this another “Pants on fire” moment? I’m hoping that you simply don’t watch him, because you sure as heck aren’t representing his views (or mine) very accurately. He supports the commission’s recommendations – and not just the ones R’s are happy typically associated with.
That R’s and D’s don’t agree is “unarguably” obvious. Now there’s a newsflash. We both live in states that are horribly in debt. If the Feds don’t soon do something to address spending and especially unfunded mandates, we’re all sunk. Given one more round of voter enthusiasm in 2012, our country could finally make some of the hard decisions that, as I said (again), are going to hurt everyone. There are either 22 or 23 (I forget) Ds in the Senate with seats up that year. After that election, we’ll see if the votes are there to change things for the better. If the D’s don’t get the ball rolling in the next two years, then I guess there will be enough R’s to do it without them. I hope that it doesn’t come to that, but I don’t have any behavior to point to that supports the thought that they’d change their spots.
Who knows, maybe the world really *will* end in 2012. Then all this is kinda moot.
Be well,
Tagamet
+10
Jan 29th, 2011 (6:28 pm)Enough of politics.
Here’s a photo from this afternoon. Volt #555 with a fresh Adam’s Carnuba waxing. I cleaned the aluminum wheels and front air dam with WD-40 sprayed on a soft towel. #555 has about 600 miles on the odometer and has burned through just 1/2 gallon of gasoline. I feel guilty hopping around town in Sport Mode thinking I’m burning gas. But am reassured as I also drive past the Arco station. The smoothness continues.
=D-Volt
+4
Jan 29th, 2011 (6:53 pm)Dave K.,
And it just had to be red…. (sigh)
Be well anyway,
Tagamet
Jan 29th, 2011 (7:14 pm)Then I would call it a subsidy.
But I really don’t think that will happen. Again, look at hybrid tax credits as an example. When the Prius exceeded the sales limit, the federal tax credit stopped.
I also doubt the plug-in credit will get to 500,000 units. They’re probably using that figure as an initial bargaining point, and the eventual compromise will be less, if it gets expanded at all. In fact, I would say the odds of expanding beyond 200,000 per manufacturer are less than 50/50.
The idea to make turn the tax credit into an upfront rebate has a much better chance.
In any case, the reason I support the plug-in credits/rebates is because they’re temporary. If they became more permanent, that would be a bad thing. But as a temporary measure to get the ball rolling, it’s perfect.
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (7:19 pm)Dave K.,
Crystal Red is the best!
I just wrote up another Volt customer on a Crystal Red with standard interior.
Took a nice long 10 mile test drive too.
Gimme more allocation! Please!!!
Jan 29th, 2011 (7:24 pm)Wait til’ you see the personalized plate. Still waiting on the sequential plates to be issued for exchange.
NPNS
+3
Jan 29th, 2011 (7:31 pm)The R’s call the D’s socialists, and then they support farm subsidies, and big military projects the joint chiefs don’t want, and huge tax breaks for oil companies with record profits. So the R’s are also socialists, they just have different priorities.
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (7:35 pm)Yeah, Michael already flaunted his.
BTW, I hate you, too.
Be well,
Tagamet
/The more I think about it, maybe tax credits *are* a good thing….
// wow, over 200 comments – and about a third are from Moi (lol)
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (7:42 pm)GM sent the customer feedback dealership survey last week. I gave sales manager Bjorge Of Paradise Chevrolet Ventura, Ca. a perfect score. The guy knows his business and is a pleasure to work with.
NPNS
Jan 29th, 2011 (7:43 pm)Dave G,
How would getting out of the way be socialistic?
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 29th, 2011 (8:06 pm)Swell. All this kind of posturing does is make it a lead-pipe cinch that the inevitable Republican administration (whenever it comes) will do everything possible to drag every EV out of every garage in the nation, cut them into chunks, smash the chunks to bits, and then jump up and down on the bits, until … until … until they’ve had enough!!!
Then, the Democrats will get another turn; and will do everything in their power to destroy whatever unrelated public issues the Republicans will have aligned themselves with. Meanwhile, America itself will continue to be impoverished, as the malicious game of political ping pong continues.
You know, there is as much to like about the Volt and other EVs on both sides of the aisle (environment vs energy security); and this kind of grandstanding by either side just makes me sick. Now, half of America is going to be opposed to the Volt and other EVs only because Obama supports them (just as the other half would oppose anything similar that a Republican president might put forward: Remember, George Bush was a strong advocate of hydrogen fuel cells).
Having said that, here’s my apparently partisan take on this much of the President’s remarks: Funding charging stations at public expense is precisely the wrong approach to take. As others have pointed out, we have already spent far more than we have, on public programs of every kind; to dubious benefit. But more to the point, it is proliferating EVs which will make public charging a reality, not public charging which will make EVs proliferate. Or don’t you think that a fleet of Volt-style vehicles won’t motivate private businesses to attract their owners with plugs? Or that sufficient numbers of EVs won’t motivate electric utilities and other entities to provide electric recharging paid from subscriber (driver) accounts? Eventually, enough EREV and PHEV vehicles will lead to the kind of recharging infrastructure most proponents envision for pure EVs.
A plug-first approach will only lead to legions of largely-unused poles and kiosks littering the landscape of an ever more bankrupted America.
.
Jan 29th, 2011 (8:16 pm)… Exaggeration alert …
.
+1
Jan 29th, 2011 (9:20 pm)Oh My! Was taht a RED Volt?
Yup I read all the comments, my take? Would the $7,500 credit be a savings for the government compared to the cost of, well, the cost of providing oil to a single vehicle in the future. How much will we have to pay to keep the Suez canal open? What is the true future cost to our government to provide oil? On a per gallon basis, I really think the Volt “subsidy” would be a savings…
Just my humble ignorant stupid opinion.
+2
Jan 29th, 2011 (10:44 pm)Time for a new Avatar. After today the old one is exhausted (lol).
G ‘night folks. Great discussion – and one we’d only find here at gm-volt.com.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 29th, 2011 (11:58 pm)Dave has the car and not the plate (yet).
I have the plate and not the car (yet).
Guess which way I’d rather have it. However, I am at status 3100 (coming from Amarillo, TX).
+3
Jan 30th, 2011 (2:00 am)Jackson,
Don’t be so pessimistic. I’m a registered republican who voted for Obama. I feel government should be limited and am against a tax credit for the leaf, at least until it’s built here, but I’m for it for the Volt.
Very few people 100 percent agree with either side, the ones who do are just the loudest.. Don’t worry about a thing, the Volt and it’s technology will be a success, especially if they can get it down to 25 30k..
+1
Jan 30th, 2011 (8:07 am)IMO, If I were the supreme potentate…
The solution would be to lightly subsidize only the US made vehicles for a short time while putting money into DOE labs (these dollars end up targeting funding in tiny chunks to graduate students all over the country) to study advances in the technologies. While we fund battery and related electronics advances in small chunks, the industry can pick their own winners from the PhD theses and related papers that pop out.
This results in the development of longer ranges, cheaper batteries, optimized control systems, and educated scientists that will help bring down costs for the manufacturers. The consumer benefits in the relative short term with better products and these new PhDs go out into the world and work for the GM’s to continue the cycle of developments in industry labs over the long term.
If only it were all so simple…..
+4
Jan 30th, 2011 (8:41 am)=======================
Sure. Just make the federal tax a flat rate that EVERYONE pays!!!!!!!!!!
How about just a few fixed rates:
0% – Those making less than $10K and the disabled
10% – Those making more than $10K and less then $40K
15% – Those making more than $40K and less than $200K
25% – Those making more then $200K
You tax form would be four lines long.
1. How much did you make?
2. How much do you owe?
3. How much did you already pay for the year?
4. Balance Due or Credit Refund
Run the numbers, and see how it would work for you………….
+1
Jan 30th, 2011 (8:43 am)==============================
Sure, just when my Volt will get delivered……………
+1
Jan 30th, 2011 (8:45 am)I really think I could fix all these problems.
You just have to elect me dictator for life!
+2
Jan 30th, 2011 (9:02 am)“world market” hmmm is that the market where you keep out all US made products while make a living sucking money out of the US?
Try to buy a Chevy Volt in Japan Germany or Korea’s “world market” . Try to buy any American car in these countries…. you will find they all put huge tariffs on our products while we stupid Americans give them $7500 per electric car and the other vehicles they sell here we put no tariffs and in fact give them a huge advantage buy letting them build plants in the US that get away with not paying US taxes. This tax advantage alone gives them huge advantages over our own GM and FORD.
Level the playing field for GM and Ford and then see who gains “market share”.
Jan 30th, 2011 (10:02 am)That’s a good looking plate. I like the Indian accent.
=D-Volt
Jan 30th, 2011 (10:06 am)It’s called a Zia symbol. It’s the state symbol; it comes from pueblo Native Americans.
Right now the plate is on my 2000 Mitsubishi Diamante, waiting for my White Diamond Tri-coat Volt.
+2
Jan 30th, 2011 (12:04 pm)You’re in luck. I think there’s a job opening up in Egypt.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 30th, 2011 (1:43 pm)And the job comes with all the Arabian coffee you can drink.
+1
Jan 30th, 2011 (5:52 pm)Sorry. I had to restrict Jim-I’s caffeine intake. It exacerbates his VES. He’ll be fine after the Volt hits Ohio though.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 30th, 2011 (7:39 pm)I read over twenty years ago a better tax rate, and the form just has three lines:
1. How much did you make?
2. How much was left over?
3. Send it in.
Raymond
Jan 30th, 2011 (8:45 pm)If you want a flat tax, just collect 7% of all purchases, like a sales tax. 7% should do everything the government wants to do, and retire the debt.
+1
Jan 30th, 2011 (8:57 pm)Yawn.
The vehicle most associated with the government is the Jeep. Wake me up when the largest model Jeep gets better than 12 mpg city on E85 which is all this year’s model can cough up. . Or when all mail delivery trucks are electric Or when all border patrol vehicles are hybrids so that they can operate short distances in EV only stealth mode.
Jan 30th, 2011 (10:14 pm)EVO,
Wake up.
We get 20 mpg in our Jeep Grande Cherokee and have gotten pretty much the same on all of them we’ve owned (4 in a row). Admittedly, not great, but given the size and weight, not horrible either.
OTOH, I like all of your suggestions – especially the border patrol stealth mode.
I haven’t looked it up (yet) but I’ll bet that if all of the Govt vehicles were electric, we’d have already exceeded the tipping point of cost reducing production numbers.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 31st, 2011 (5:43 am)I recommend Puerto Rican coffee. It is much better and all the employees that grow, pick, roast, and package the coffee are American. If we are cutting down oil imports, why should we import cofeee?
Raymond
Jan 31st, 2011 (6:56 am)OMG Please don’t even mention coffee. It’s about the only thing that’s come out unscathed over the last forty years.
Jan 31st, 2011 (10:56 am)Sorry, I said city and E85. You must be talking a good mix of highway and/or high speed and gasoline, a whole different ball game and not what the majority of local government/delivery vehicles see in daily duty cycles. Even so, I’ll play along with you changing rules midstream to allow you a handicap and still win…
Trying not to be harsh, but through four generations with you and they haven’t improved the mileage one iota? Pathetic. And you’re still buying it as if there’s no other options? A VW Touareg 3.0 diesel gets 40% better mileage (28 highway to your 20 and even bigger difference in city driving) and is far more competent and fun to drive (repeatedly winning and placing podium in Dakar Rally in droves). Even the 3.6 gets at least 15% better mileage than yours and is far more competent and fun to drive. I feel sorry for you.
Jan 31st, 2011 (7:31 pm)There are five warning flags that the era of the USA is coming to an end
Financial overextension
Military overextension
Dysfunctional government — mis-use of filibuster plus Citizens United
Destruction of our middle class is second only to Brazil of the developed countries as measured by the Gini Index and reported by the CIA
Failure to act in a timely manner to a shift in our primary energy supply
The rapid electrification of the automobile is our chance to tackle the last item and is well worth the subsidy.
The argument that two wrongs don’t make a right is similar to the one that says that it is immoral to redistribute wealth from rich to poor after being silent on the government led redistribution of wealth from the poor to the wealthy over the past couple of decades.
+1
Jan 31st, 2011 (10:41 pm)EVO,
Not to worry. I’m fine, and will be with my *next* vehicle of choice. If I can’t wait long enough to buy a new Volt, I’ll be getting another used Jeep Grande Cherokee. I just pray to God that the eco-zealots haven’t shoved E85 down our collective throats by then. I think I’ll be ok until the next election cycle.
Be well,
Tagamet
Jan 31st, 2011 (10:44 pm)Did you know that municipal water treatment plants don’t remove caffeine? They are finding it in fresh-water fish flesh. True story.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Jan 31st, 2011 (11:32 pm)Tagamet asks (#25) “Can you point to a spot where our govt has actually actually ‘picked a winner’”? Well, yes, quite easily. There would be no Internet today if the DOE agency called DARPA has not created it. And the Internet is not trivial. Based on the time spent by my children and myself, it is about as important as TV ever was. Another important industry, though not as important, is GPS. Is Tagamet aware that it is completely dependent on a dozen or more DOE satellites up there at all times?
I am sick and tired of the right-wing extremists who tell me with religious certainty that government is not the solution; it is the problem. ALWAYS!
+1
Feb 1st, 2011 (4:26 am)Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t DARPA part of the Department of Defense? I can’t find any reference to it being an agency of the DOE. I recognize that they fund research that sometimes result in products of use for the general public, but do you really think that they launched all those DODcommunications satellites to enable citizens to find an address by GPS? We get to use *their* satellites at their pleasure. The internet is obviously a wonderful tool that grew out of their need to have a limited number of super-computers to be able to share data. – not an entirely altruistic effort on their part. The distinction that I guess *I* failed to communicate is between investing in research that sometime results in really great technological strides, and the govt’s ability to actually implement and run programs that efficiently benefit the public.
I think that your last paragraph’s characterizations are a tad over-the-top, but don’t worry, I’ll pray for you.
God Bless,
Tagamet
Feb 1st, 2011 (7:35 am)Tagamet,
How come you to this figure (if not to say stronger words)? Annual sales of gasoline in US is around 20 bn. of gallons (http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_refmg_d_nus_VTR_mgalpd_a.htm) and in case there would be gasoline price $3/gallon – turnover $60 bn. Over 5 years would be $300 bn. May be I am wrong saying that 1% fuel sales tax would be enough to collect $8 bn over 5 years for Plugin program subsidy but with such sales volumes of plug-ins $8 bn. are barely needed. 2,5% is far too much.
Feb 1st, 2011 (8:28 am)Darius,
Maybe we are talking about two different things, but I was pointing out that the *interest* on our national debt is costing 4 billion dollars a day ($56,000/second). I was just pointing out that $8 billion sounds huge until it’s seen in relation to how deep in debt we are. If I was bleeding this heavily, I wouldn’t want to lose another drop of blood. Taking more money out of the economy for a Volt subsidy just doesn’t seem wise to me. Obviously. that’s just my feeling, and many, many others see it differently.
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 1st, 2011 (1:44 pm)And here I thought it was the superwealthy industrial ag tycoons and their high paid Washington lobbyists and lawyers pushing it down our throats, as the very few and totally powerless eco-zealots I’ve heard of are dead set against food portion corn based ethanol.
Thanks for setting us all straight.
20 mpg is only shocking to me because I’m used to 455, 622 or 816 mpge as normal in my daily travels (depends mostly on which vehicle I use), so I guess what we are each used to colors our understanding.
Let’s just agree that reasonably priced border (and other) patrol hybrids with a useful range EV on demand stealth mode would be not just cool but also effective and leave it at that.
+1
Feb 1st, 2011 (3:15 pm)For the record: President Obama and his Administration have been exceptional in their support of the electrification effort and goals. Without the President’s staunch and continued support, we would not be as far along as we are now. Make no mistake about it – NO OTHER NATION is doing as much in leadership and actual production of EVs as the United States. The US leads the entire world in electrification of transportation and the fact that every major car manufacturer is making an EV/PHEV confirms the efficacy of the President’s efforts.
Thank you Mr. President and staff for your indefatigable leadership in this all important evolution of energy use on the Planet Earth. You are (ahem) the Man!
Feb 1st, 2011 (3:41 pm)Wow! How this thread has devolved into political diatribe. Sound and fury meaning nothing. OTOH, we have the continued brilliant campaign bringing the key rollout cities Chevy VOLT demos! Fantastic! So far the GM rollout has functioned flawlessly. Bringing these demos to the key market and eventually all 50 States is a magnificent way to let the public experience an electric vehicle.
And what a vehicle it is. Having driven one of the first test drives up in the NW – I can attest to the astonishing smooth, authoritative feel one gets from this incredibly well-engineered car. A complete winner. Congratulations to GM’s excellent execution of the rollout. And as always to the fantastic support Team at Chevy and here on GM-VOLT – the people’s voice in electrification.
Build Those Volts!
Feb 1st, 2011 (4:44 pm)Absolutely!
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 1st, 2011 (4:52 pm)GreenWin,
I also appreciate our Presidents’ efforts. I hope that they are mirrored by the both houses of Congress, in terms of replacing current govt fleet vehicles with plugins where appropriate.
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 1st, 2011 (5:50 pm)Dear Mr. Tagamet:
Thanks for your comments on my examples of the govt actually picking winners (your #235).
You are completely correct in pointing out that the Internet and GPS were developed and “commercialized” by the DOD, not the DOE. (Created by the govt, in fact.) My indignation got the better of me and I hit the wrong key. Sorry.
However, you haven’t convinced me that the govt has NEVER picked a winner. The Internet and GPS are surely winners, and very important winners at that. Your argument that they are not really winners because they don’t show “govt’s ability to actually implement and run programs that efficiently benefit the public” sounds like quibbling to me. Surely you admit the govt implemented the Internet and the GPS. And surely you admit the Internet and GPS efficiently benefit the public. So why not give credit where credit is due?
Why do you have the need to bad-mouth the govt even when it IS picking winners? Why do you get satisfaction from being an ideologue? Why must you think of the govt as the Great Satan? Isn’t it more rational to blame the govt when it screws up and praise it when it “picks winners”? Every parent knows that he/she shouldn’t blame kids for EVERYTHING. Not unless you’re looking forward to their hating you when they grow up. Be reasonable.
Your letters show you’re an unusually intelligent person. Can’t you extend it to your thinking about the govt?
+1
Feb 1st, 2011 (10:02 pm)Both DARPA’s internet and the GPS were developed without the slightest thought of “public” use. They were developed as tools for DOD to enhance its military mission only. It took the services of government technology transfer programs to put these two items into commercial hands which made them what they are today. The private sector is responsible for their success with the public.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
George Washington
Feb 1st, 2011 (10:04 pm)Albert Sanders,
I’m sure that no hearts or minds will be changed here, but…. You seem to be crediting the govt with efficiently implementing the internet, when internet service providers are just good old capitalists – similar to cell phone service providers that actually build the towers, produce and sell the phones, and charge customers for their use. Granted, the govt launched many of the GPS satellites, but I haven’t seen many GPS units sold to the public by them.
Where in the world you got the “Great Satan” remark, I have no idea. I think that we have the greatest country in the world, and that includes the best system of govt in the world.
How ’bout we agree that Ike’s building of the interstate system in the post WW II years as a worthwhile govt program. Lewis and Clark’s expedition was pretty impressive too. (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Feb 2nd, 2011 (5:33 pm)for what it’s worth, if it’s true it’s interesting
Exxon is giving Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes. (via ABC News)
That just so happened to work out to be $141,000 a day, nearly $6,000 an hour or $100 a minute.
In 2005, amidst rising gas prices at pumps across the world, Exxon made $36 billion, the biggest profit of any company in history. Meanwhile, Raymond, told Congress that gas prices were high because of global supply and demand, claiming that “We’re all in this together, everywhere in the world”.
l wonder if he ordered a volt…….
Feb 2nd, 2011 (8:58 pm)Dear Mr. Tagamet:
I must apologize to you for being so cranky. It’s just that I’ve
heard too many times that “gov’t is not the solution; gov’t is the problem”.
Anyway, I thank you for your kind wishes (#244). It’s nice to know that we can strongly disagree yet be civil to each another.
I said before that you are an unusually intelligent person. I’d like to add that you are a gentleman too.