# Should Congress End Electric Car Subsidies?



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Congress should end ALL subsidies period!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Thank you. 

I've always puzzled over the concept of "the long term benefit of debt" with regards to our government. I think I understand it now - they get theirs, then split before it collapses.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Yes they should end them, right after they pull the oil (including the 2 carrier groups) subsidies.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Yes they should end them, right after they pull the oil (including the 2 carrier groups) subsidies.


Absolutely. Along with every other subsidy on the books - we can no longer afford such graft.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

Jason Lattimer said:


> Congress should end ALL subsidies period!


Agreed. There are few things that should be subsidized by the federal gov't and they're fairly well defined. Our federal gov't is a bloated bumbling joke, but it's a joke on us.

If the states want to do it I'm totally fine with it. The public is much more able to control the purse strings at more local levels.


----------



## lowcrawler (Jun 27, 2011)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Yes they should end them, right after they pull the oil (including the 2 carrier groups) subsidies.


Exactly. Stop spending Trillions subsidizing oil... _then _the millions spent subsidizing electric should be stopped.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

lowcrawler said:


> Exactly. Stop spending Trillions subsidizing oil... _then _the millions spent subsidizing electric should be stopped.


Why wait? End them all at once.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

PhantomPholly said:


> Why wait? End them all at once.


Ever seen the show Split or Steal? YouTube it. It doesn't end well for the nice guy looking out for the good of the group.


----------



## jeremyjs (Sep 22, 2010)

PhantomPholly said:


> Why wait? End them all at once.


It would get ugly pretty quick if it ended all at once. everyone would probably be better off if they were phased out over a few years.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

jeremyjs said:


> ...Our federal gov't is a bloated bumbling joke, but it's a joke on us...


Exactly, and people sitting on their duff and not doing anything about it is the main reason we're in this mess. I'm part of a grass roots organization going out tomorrow door to door with someone working to elect good people to office, not self serving damn lawyers. Join your local Club for Growth, Freedomworks or such, donate, call or go door to door with them. Us "little people" are getting involved and making changes, getting good people elected and taking over local and state political parties or changing their direction to support good people, not career pols and attorneys. 

Getting lifers like Dick Lugar of Indiana out of office who's been in Washington since the Jimmy Carter days if not before is the key to reform and putting an end to pork and BS regulations! Orin Hatch of Utah is on the hot seat as well, another lifer! 

Club for Growth has scorecards so you can see how your pols vote on issues. Great resource linked below.

http://www.freedomworks.org/
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/


----------



## Wild (Aug 19, 2011)

The problem being that the present US false economy is simply that. If subsidies and all other government interests were ended and true market interest rates were allowed to prevail the US would enter a historical depression with a huge social burden due to the huge senior population. If true total debt figures at all govt levels including entitlements were calculated the amount would be close to 150 trillion dollars.

Be glad that you have such a greedy manipulative government keeping this sinking ship afloat as long as they have.
But be very afraid of your future.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

If they would roll back business and corporate taxes the economy would takeoff as they would have more of the money they made to go towards expansion, new equipment etc. 

That would then add to the tax revenues through increased incomes of the companies getting that money and their employees if they hire more or get more hours in because of it.

Increasing taxes is an economic depressant.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

If you're ever flown over the DC area, you know the place is made of money. What does that money actually buy? What comes out of the area? Nothing, unless you count BS. Every corporation has many layers of management, all the actual work happens in the first 1 or 2, and everyone else just rides the pyramid scheme.

The more money you take away from the suits, the more you have to pay people to actually produce something.


----------



## JRoque (Mar 9, 2010)

Hi. My take on subsidies is that they cause the product or service costs to be just that much higher to consumers. The costs initially get reduced by the subsidy amount until the service provider figures out the consumer is saving that much money and raise their prices to match it. Look at gasoline, EVs, solar panels, etc.

I've always thought that if we suddenly ended the EV subsidy, OEMs will find that their EV production costs have "magically" been reduced by $7500 and pass the savings to consumers anyway.

JR


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

I think you're right on raising prices. The Volt is no way should cost so much as to warrant what they are selling them for, especially in light of the concessions they got from unions the last few years. Their overhead has dropped a good bit since then. 

The Prius with 12 mile range is much cheaper and it's a Toyota, not a second or third rate GM product!


----------



## Wild (Aug 19, 2011)

ElectriCar said:


> I think you're right on raising prices. The Volt is no way should cost so much as to warrant what they are selling them for, especially in light of the concessions they got from unions the last few years. Their overhead has dropped a good bit since then.
> 
> The Prius with 12 mile range is much cheaper and it's a Toyota, not a second or third rate GM product!


Actually you are wrong. The Volt is priced right for what the car is and what it was originally designed for in the first place and that was to show off Tesla. If the Volt was designed today and if GM was serious about competing in the hybrid market then yes GM could produce a cheap plug in hybrid.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

To show off Tesla? Don't follow you there. Considering battery cost, my pack with a 100 mile range was about $11000. Added to the cost of a typical Chevy car of comparable size, there's no way to justify that price tag! I know I didn't mention all the differences involved in an electric but figure, you also don't have all those emission controls, sensors, exhaust etc either.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

ElectriCar said:


> To show off Tesla? Don't follow you there. Considering battery cost, my pack with a 100 mile range was about $11000. Added to the cost of a typical Chevy car of comparable size, there's no way to justify that price tag! I know I didn't mention all the differences involved in an electric but figure, you also don't have all those emission controls, sensors, exhaust etc either.


Remember, the Volt is 40,000 because it has both drivetrains in it.


----------



## Wild (Aug 19, 2011)

ElectriCar said:


> To show off Tesla? Don't follow you there. Considering battery cost, my pack with a 100 mile range was about $11000. Added to the cost of a typical Chevy car of comparable size, there's no way to justify that price tag! I know I didn't mention all the differences involved in an electric but figure, you also don't have all those emission controls, sensors, exhaust etc either.


Bob Lutz has explained the reason why the Volt concept was developed in the first place, it's a good read  The reasoning why the volt was put into production is also explained but do we have to discuss egos, economic and political pressures?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

jeremyjs said:


> It would get ugly pretty quick if it ended all at once. everyone would probably be better off if they were phased out over a few years.


Actually, there is no evidence to support that theory and plenty to dismiss it. Most folks receiving subsidies don't need them. It is generally political payola for political support.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Wild said:


> The problem being that the present US false economy is simply that. If subsidies and all other government interests were ended and true market interest rates were allowed to prevail the US would enter a historical depression with a huge social burden due to the huge senior population. If true total debt figures at all govt levels including entitlements were calculated the amount would be close to 150 trillion dollars.
> 
> Be glad that you have such a greedy manipulative government keeping this sinking ship afloat as long as they have.
> But be very afraid of your future.


The key there is the future obligations. Those can be cut in a single session of Congress, putting us on an even economic keel without sinking the ship.

The only question is whether or not we can elect enough people of integrity to do the right thing - and those seem to be in short supply.


----------



## ElectriCar (Jun 15, 2008)

Wish we had a "like" button here!


----------

