Obama wants to give 10k of your money to make da chevy volt sell better...lol

[ninjahood]

[h1][/h1]

[h1]Obama Plans $10,000 Subsidy for Chevy Volt[/h1]
February 13, 2012 8:58 PM EST

• 
  http://

• print
• email
• 0 Comments

2012 Chevrolet Volt (Photo: GM)

Electric car buyers might enjoy an extra $10,000 off from getting a Chevy Volt or its likes, if the Congress approves the new bill to increase government subsidies for new-technology vehicles.

According to a budget documented titled “Investing in Our Future

 

[shiznut123]

I don't get electric cars. Unless the electricity was produced w/ clean/renewable fuel sources, what's the point?

 

[e3lal]

Originally Posted by shiznut123

I don't get electric cars. Unless the electricity was produced w/ clean/renewable fuel sources, what's the point?

+ can areas like socal sustain x amount of electric cars?  Doesn't the area have rolling blackouts at times.

We should just focus on hybrids for the time being.

 

[ninjahood]

Originally Posted by shiznut123

I don't get electric cars. Unless the electricity was produced w/ clean/renewable fuel sources, what's the point?

to make you feel better...

 

[ninjahood]

[h1]GM Suspends Chevy Volt Production After Poor Sales[/h1]

• 
  By Mark Hachman
• March 2, 2012 08:25pm EST
• 3 Comments

Share10 inShare 0digg http://stumbleupon.com/submit?url=h...spends+Chevy+Volt+Production+After+Poor+Sales

General Motors said Friday that it is temporarily suspending production of the Chevrolet Volt following disappointing sales.

General Motors told the Associated Press Friday that the company will shut down production of the Volt from March 19 until April 23, idling 1,300 workers at its Detroit-Hamtramck assembly plant.

GM sold sold 1,023 Volts in February and 603 in January, and fell short of its goal of selling 10,000 Volts last year, the AP reported.

"Even with sales up in February over January, we are still seeking to align our production with demand," GM spokesman Chris Lee told USA Today.

Backed by a patriotic ad campaign, the Volt has become, in part, a symbol for General Motors, which in 2008 and 2009 ago received a total of $52.4 billion in bailout packages from the Bush and Obama administrations.

In January, GM chairman and CEO Dan Akerson testified before the U.S. House Subcommittee to discuss the issues surrounding the Volt.

"Although we loaded the Volt with state-of-the-art safety features," Akerson explained, "we did not engineer the Volt to be a political punching bag. And that, sadly, is what it's become."

Chevrolet announced a low-emission version of the Chevrolet Volt last Thursday, designed to allow California drivers to drive solo in the state's carpool lanes. That, however, came too late for early Volt buyers in the Golden State.

The low-emissions Volt carries the standard MSRP of $39,900, a Chevrolet spokesman said last week. The Volt also qualifies for the $7,500 federal tax credit for ultra-low emissions vehicles as well as a $1,500 California state tax rebate. 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401117,00.asp

 

[theone2401]

Not to mention the fact that unless they come up with a way better/cheaper way to power the cars than lithium batteries electric cars are DOA.

Or you know the conflict of interest between a company that is partially owned by the government using a taxpayer subsidy to help sell its products.

 

[HEATHEN]

Daaaaa.....only if it comes with da hemi.

da Chevy x Dodge collab for da hemi and I'm da in.

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by ninjahood




[h1][/h1]

According to a budget documented titled “Investing in Our Future

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by ninjahood




[h1][/h1]

According to a budget documented titled “Investing in Our Future

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by theone2401


How is getting rid of tax breaks a good thing? Raising taxes on anyone is bad.

I'll also answer your question.  Our country is running budget deficits so any ways to raise additional tax revenue are needed.  (key term revenue, as in total tax revenues, if the tax increases cause a decline in economic activity, that would most likely reduce total tax revenue)

Why is raising taxes bad?

 

[mplsdunk]

all this hybrid and electric car stuff is stupid as hell.  hybrids are nukes in a can and where does the power come from for the volt? elves turning a generator? nah probably a coal burning power plant.

america is so stupid.  vw has diesels hitting 55mpg.  it's proven to be reliable and get good mpg. how about stupid americans stop trying to be futuristic sheep in their hover crafts and just do what europe has been doing forever.

 

[ricky409]

Originally Posted by SneakerHeathen

Daaaaa.....only if it comes with da hemi.

da Chevy x Dodge collab for da hemi and I'm da in.

lmao @ "da in"

 

[alchemist iq]

blame the industry.

 

[Humbled]

Originally Posted by SneakerHeathen

Daaaaa.....only if it comes with da hemi.

da Chevy x Dodge collab for da hemi and I'm da in.

da realest post in da thread.

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401


How is getting rid of tax breaks a good thing? Raising taxes on anyone is bad.

I'll also answer your question.  Our country is running budget deficits so any ways to raise additional tax revenue are needed.  (key term revenue, as in total tax revenues, if the tax increases cause a decline in economic activity, that would most likely reduce total tax revenue)

Why is raising taxes bad?

This discussion is about to get very ideological but...

Increasing tax revenue would be good but only if it was in excess of spending. Taking money from Oil Companies and giving it to GM is not going to help the deficit at all because its net neutral. (Really net negative unless they find a way to better power electric cars) The only thing that would help the deficit is to stop increasing spending or even DECREASE it.

Obviously this money is not going directly from Oil Companies to GM so I know I am oversimplifying things. But we also know that there are no planned cuts in spending being proposed so your increase in tax revenues argument is a red herring.

At the end of the day the Oil Companies are just going to pass the cost of those "tax breaks" back to us anyway because 10K is still not enough to make electric cars practical.

 

[ar guy]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401


How is getting rid of tax breaks a good thing? Raising taxes on anyone is bad.

I'll also answer your question.  Our country is running budget deficits so any ways to raise additional tax revenue are needed.  (key term revenue, as in total tax revenues, if the tax increases cause a decline in economic activity, that would most likely reduce total tax revenue)

Why is raising taxes bad?

America doesn't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. 

 

[fly23s]

Nice title op

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by theone2401


This discussion is about to get very ideological but...

Increasing tax revenue would be good but only if it was in excess of spending. Taking money from Oil Companies and giving it to GM is not going to help the deficit at all because its net neutral. (Really net negative unless they find a way to better power electric cars) The only thing that would help the deficit is to stop increasing spending or even DECREASE it.

Obviously this money is not going directly from Oil Companies to GM so I know I am oversimplifying things. But we also know that there are no planned cuts in spending being proposed so your increase in tax revenues argument is a red herring.

At the end of the day the Oil Companies are just going to pass the cost of those "tax breaks" back to us anyway because 10K is still not enough to make electric cars practical.

Why not increase revenue and cut the spending that will not significantly hurt the economy?  Why not explore all feasible solutions?

You imply that oil companies will pass the "tax breaks" back to us anyways.  You would agree that oil is a global commodity right?  Would you also agree that oil prices are set by global supply and demand also, right?  So why would we pay more because of the cost of the tax breaks?  Do the tax policies of Canada cause us to pay more or less for our oil/gas, what about the tax policies of China, Saudi Arabia, etc. 

Your statement that oil companies will pass the "tax breaks" back to us would imply that our tax policy is responsible for setting the global price of oil. 

 

[thorrocksjs]

Da bomb

 

[milestailsprowe]

The range needs to be at least 200miles per charge and some of issues with electric cars like them bricking needs to be solved. If not that and a price cut then they will never gain in the US

 

[marinadelrey]

da

 

[denni5themenace]

why is your only argument against hybrids the Chevy volt?

 

[|A-Man|]

So you're saying if he didn't do this I'd have 10k?

 

[thunderchunk69]

what's da resell like?

 

[theone2401]

Originally Posted by cguy610

Originally Posted by theone2401


This discussion is about to get very ideological but...

Increasing tax revenue would be good but only if it was in excess of spending. Taking money from Oil Companies and giving it to GM is not going to help the deficit at all because its net neutral. (Really net negative unless they find a way to better power electric cars) The only thing that would help the deficit is to stop increasing spending or even DECREASE it.

Obviously this money is not going directly from Oil Companies to GM so I know I am oversimplifying things. But we also know that there are no planned cuts in spending being proposed so your increase in tax revenues argument is a red herring.

At the end of the day the Oil Companies are just going to pass the cost of those "tax breaks" back to us anyway because 10K is still not enough to make electric cars practical.

Why not increase revenue and cut the spending that will not significantly hurt the economy?  Why not explore all feasible solutions?

No, I am not disagreeing with you on this part you are 100% correct. What I am saying is none of those things you posted are doing that and you seemed to have been implying they were. They are not cutting any spending and they are not increasing revenue they are just taking from one and giving to the other.

You imply that oil companies will pass the "tax breaks" back to us anyways.  You would agree that oil is a global commodity right?  Would you also agree that oil prices are set by global supply and demand also, right?  So why would we pay more because of the cost of the tax breaks?  Do the tax policies of Canada cause us to pay more or less for our oil/gas, what about the tax policies of China, Saudi Arabia, etc. 

Your statement that oil companies will pass the "tax breaks" back to us would imply that our tax policy is responsible for setting the global price of oil. 

You are also 100% right about oil. But we do not use oil in the form that you are talking about. It must be processed and transported by these Oil Companies and that is where they would pass their increased tax liability back to the consumers. Unless you start seeing a total shift in the way petroleum products are supplied to the US ( like Canadian, Chinese, or Saudi Arabian gas stations and that would create new costs in and of it self) we are going to be paying for these tax breaks one way or the other.

Corporations do not pay taxes. Either the people who buy their products pay them (through higher prices), their employees pay them (through lower wages), or the company's shareholders pay them (through lower dividends or lower share price due to lower profits as I am sure most people knowingly or unknowingly own oil companies stock through 401k's, etc).