# Despite record sales, the Volt still makes the right-wing see red



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

CHARGED EVs Magazine said:


> This week the web site Fox Nation ran a new story that repeats several of the anti-Volt talking points, including one that Fox’s own Steve Doocy rejected back in March... Newswire >



The complaint many of us have about electric technology, is that is should not be a government subsidy. Subsidies have a poor track record. 

If the government wants to spend billions on researching better EV - PV technology, it would be money better spent in the long run.

If people buy things because you give them money to buy them, the minute the money goes way, so does a large portion of the industry. It doesn't take a huge drop in sales to bankrupt a company that has huge investments in technology. Ask GM about that one.

GM was in the opposite boat. The gov't was draining billions from them to punish them for being a big company. So when sales fell, BAM!

What really sucked? GM developed the most technologically advanced diesel engine in history, the 4.5L Duramax. Similar weight, size, HP, and cost as a gas V8 engine but with 25% less hydrocarbons used.

In the Gov't Restructuring, they abandoned it. There are thousands of engines sitting in a warehouse rotting. A few of my friend got some the test engines, and they are trick as hell. Piezo DI, 4v,intake manifold built into valve cover, solid roller cam, exhaust manifolds are in the valley of the V8 where the turbo sits, etc, etc, etc. Make the Euro diesels look like horse and buggy stuff.

Our government is not our friend, and they are not out to improve our future. They are there for their own personal gain, and to help their friends.

Don't believe it? The President bought tens of millions of gallons of bio-diesel for $18/gallon. It sells for about $4/gal when you buy small quantities, less by the barrel. Somebody got rich off that deal.

Look at the Solar industry. It is now 90% "Time Share Condo" salesmen and 10% productive workers. That is going tumble like a house of cards soon.

The Volt is a good idea. The goal is to make it cheaper. You don't do that by sending checks to buyers. You do it by helping GM with the development and legal costs and safety costs. 1/3 of the price of a car is due to federal mandates, and legal costs. Reduce those costs and the consumer gets the cars at the "discount" price.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

I agree totally. I don't want subsidies for anything, electric or the billions they give the oil industry. I also think hybrids are a bad idea. Either go all electric or all gasoline. Hybrids like the Volt are too complicated. That said, I also believe Neil Cavuto is an idiot. The attacks are needless and foundless.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

The oil industry gets a lot more subsidies than the EV/alternative energy one does. I don't need to send soldiers halfway around the world to ensure my solar panels are safe. Let's see them tack on that cost to a gallon of gas.

And it isn't a subsidy. It is letting people not pay up to $7500 in taxes that they would have owed if they had not picked a car to help reduce our oil use.

But the handlers of the right-wing media are in bed with the companies that will lose sales if millions of EVs hit the streets.


----------



## McRat (Jul 10, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> The oil industry gets a lot more subsidies than the EV/alternative energy one does. I don't need to send soldiers halfway around the world to ensure my solar panels are safe. Let's see them tack on that cost to a gallon of gas.
> 
> And it isn't a subsidy. It is letting people not pay up to $7500 in taxes that they would have owed if they had not picked a car to help reduce our oil use.
> 
> But the handlers of the right-wing media are in bed with the companies that will lose sales if millions of EVs hit the streets.


I guess if you look at taxes as being punishment for doing things against the wishes of the State, then I suppose that makes sense.

I see taxes as our civic duty to keep our infrastructure intact, and provide for the common defense. And reducing our dependence on foreign oil is like jury duty, it sucks, but it's our duty as Americans. I don't need a carrot on a stick to do the right thing. Perhaps that's what's wrong today. At great cost, I moved our business so it would be closer to my employees and myself. It would have been cheaper to move further away, but every little bit helps.

To keep our infrastructure intact means in part to cut our dependence on trade with countries who are hostile to us. And it's a defense thingy as well.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

The entire argument is based on a very pompous and spoiled attitude that one should not have to make any changes to ones lifestyle if it might be a little less convenient or glamorous. Neal Cavuto would probably buy a gasoline powered cell phone if it meant that he would not have to remember to plug it in once in a while. I think his wife is already frustrated because he doesn't like to "plug it in" anymore...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> I agree totally. *I don't want subsidies for anything, electric or the billions they give the oil industry.*


We've had this discussion before. When the government gives you back some of the excessive taxes they already took from you, it isn't a subsidy despite the political spin machines trying to call them that. It's a taxbreak attempting to coerce the business into doing things that do not make sense for the business to do on their own.

Our politicians can't operate our government on over $2.5 trillion in unearned revenues each year, yet they want people to believe (and the stupider among us do believe) that they can make better business decisions than the owners. There is only one way this ends, as it has many times before in history, and it won't be fun.


----------

