Are You Ready for the Next Natural Disaster? AARP Live Can Help You Get Prepared Tonight at 10 p.m. Watch here

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,444
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: electric car mandate

Message 1 of 27 (127 Views)

sp362 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

sp362 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

sp362 wrote:

Is your question for me or Gail?


The question is directed at any and all advocates for unrestrained, predatory business enterprise, most especially financial, without regulation.  You just happened to be 'in the line of fire' so to speak.  Still.......if you feel obligated to answer, go ahead, take your best shot.  


Personally, I believe one of the functions of the Government is to "level the playing field" to give everybody (person and business) a chance to succeed.  In this case, the playing field is tilted towards the fossil fuel industry so I see nothing wrong with subsidizing alternatives.  It is either that or adding costs to fossil fuels to cover the costs of the damage that is being done (which would probably cost even more than the subsidies, without the long term benefits).


There is absolutely no question the cost to 'fix' the 'damage' will come close to breaking the bank.  There is no alternative 'better way'.  The earth we've got is 'it'  There ain't no other we can use and that's the truth.  No matter how many deny what is happening and how many palms get greased so the wealthy can get wealthier, that's the truth!

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,194
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: electric car mandate

Message 2 of 27 (149 Views)

Electric cars are the future, the near future. Batteries have been steadily improving and will keep improving to where electric vehicles will have the same range as gas powered vehicles with plenty of power, comfort, and looks. Even large vehicles such as trucks will eventually be electric. Embrace it, it's happening in the near future. With the government helping with this, it can help 'Make America Great' by the jobs and export potential it would bring, as with all alternative energy applications. Without the government getting involved America will miss the boat and other countries will take the lead and reap the benefits.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,186
Registered: ‎01-01-2016

Re: electric car mandate

Message 3 of 27 (156 Views)

umbarch64 wrote:

sp362 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

sp362 wrote:

Is your question for me or Gail?


The question is directed at any and all advocates for unrestrained, predatory business enterprise, most especially financial, without regulation.  You just happened to be 'in the line of fire' so to speak.  Still.......if you feel obligated to answer, go ahead, take your best shot.  


Personally, I believe one of the functions of the Government is to "level the playing field" to give everybody (person and business) a chance to succeed.  In this case, the playing field is tilted towards the fossil fuel industry so I see nothing wrong with subsidizing alternatives.  It is either that or adding costs to fossil fuels to cover the costs of the damage that is being done (which would probably cost even more than the subsidies, without the long term benefits).

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,444
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: electric car mandate

Message 4 of 27 (165 Views)

sp362 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

sp362 wrote:

Is your question for me or Gail?


The question is directed at any and all advocates for unrestrained, predatory business enterprise, most especially financial, without regulation.  You just happened to be 'in the line of fire' so to speak.  Still.......if you feel obligated to answer, go ahead, take your best shot.  

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,119
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: electric car mandate

Message 5 of 27 (181 Views)

We are still the richest, most powerful Nation on Earth, and therefore WE have the most to lose when climat change destroys civilization.

 

If that means providing tax breaks for above average incomes to buy electric cars, so be it. If it means funding government R&D to develop better batteries for the cars and as storage devices for "rich" wind and solar companies, good. If it means spending Government money to build Nuclear reactors to replace coal fired furnaces at private utility company power plants, or building and installing lowhead hydro devices all up and down the Mississippi-Missouri system, even better.

 

Republicans want us to think its all a plot to make Al Gore rich - that's been at the leading edge of their climate change denial nonsense from the beginning.

 

But the reality is our civilization is at stake.

 

A very slight increase in average temperatures and the midwest can no longer feed the world, nor can the other grain exporting countries.

 

A very slight increase in sea levels and tens of millions of people are flooded out of their homes.

 

A very slight decrease in the salinity of the oceans and the ocean currents that create our temporate climate stop flowing and we enter a new ice age.

 

And Republicans STILL want to worry about THE MONEY.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,186
Registered: ‎01-01-2016

Re: electric car mandate

Message 6 of 27 (196 Views)

umbarch64 wrote:

sp362 wrote:

GailL1 wrote:

Olderscout66,

i don't believe those development subsidies went to the end-user - they went to the industry.  In fact we are still subsidizing things in this manner which IMO should be pretty much standing on their own - rapid transit, Amtrax - the list goes on.

 

Tax advantage subsidies given to the end user are really just discounts for the product and they are hard to stop EVER especially if the product in question does not become competitive in stand alone pricing ( market pricing ) where the product is desired by those of all income levels.  You can apply that same thing to things like solar panels - still highly subsidized by state tax credits in some states.

 

I ask this question to especially you - why should government subsidize any item at the end-user level especially when the price of such items are cost prohibitive to many people - with or without the tax advantage subsidiary?

 

 

 

 


Gail, I would agree with you except for the fact that we are already "subsidizing" internal combustion engines and high pollution vehicles by not charging them the future costs that their vehicles are generating for clean up and mitigation.  If somebody can figure out what these costs will be and figure out how to charge it, whether at the point of sale or at the pump, then I would agree with your point.  But, right now, the cost of an internal combustion vehicle is artificially low.


Few, if any, industries 'stand on their own'.  Especially at the very beginning of their development.  Maybe once upon a time in a land far, far, away that was true. 

 

Internal combustion engines are subsidized when companies AND people don't pay for the consequences. Everything has a cost.  Someone has to pay...eventually.  The future picks up the tab when you don't pick up all of it.  You victimize your own species without their consent by kicking the can down the road that way.  You want to rant about 'taxation without representation', try that one on for starters.

 

Corporations, businesses, whatever and whoever use a product and refuse to pay the real costs do that...that's you and me.  Ignorant and short-sighted.  Willful, blind stupitity indulged for selfish, self-serving purpose. In the end, that has to be categorized as amoral and immoral. That is a judgement...make of it what you will.  You will note I did not exclude myself.  So...in all fairness, neither should you.

 

That judgement applies to any that use or deplete a natural and/or non-renewable resource at the eventual expense of the People...the ones now alive, those who come after and ALL those who won't.  Pick how you want to deal with that and try to generate an argument against that truth.  Try hard.  IF you are still able to be intellectually honest, you won't be able to justify that practice to yourself, let alone anyone else.

 

So...tell me, good advocate for predatory capitalism and elimination of government regulation, how is that not the truth.  I'm waiting.


Is your question for me or Gail?

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,444
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: electric car mandate

Message 7 of 27 (207 Views)

sp362 wrote:

GailL1 wrote:

Olderscout66,

i don't believe those development subsidies went to the end-user - they went to the industry.  In fact we are still subsidizing things in this manner which IMO should be pretty much standing on their own - rapid transit, Amtrax - the list goes on.

 

Tax advantage subsidies given to the end user are really just discounts for the product and they are hard to stop EVER especially if the product in question does not become competitive in stand alone pricing ( market pricing ) where the product is desired by those of all income levels.  You can apply that same thing to things like solar panels - still highly subsidized by state tax credits in some states.

 

I ask this question to especially you - why should government subsidize any item at the end-user level especially when the price of such items are cost prohibitive to many people - with or without the tax advantage subsidiary?

 

 

 

 


Gail, I would agree with you except for the fact that we are already "subsidizing" internal combustion engines and high pollution vehicles by not charging them the future costs that their vehicles are generating for clean up and mitigation.  If somebody can figure out what these costs will be and figure out how to charge it, whether at the point of sale or at the pump, then I would agree with your point.  But, right now, the cost of an internal combustion vehicle is artificially low.


Few, if any, industries 'stand on their own'.  Especially at the very beginning of their development.  Maybe once upon a time in a land far, far, away that was true. 

 

Internal combustion engines are subsidized when companies AND people don't pay for the consequences. Everything has a cost.  Someone has to pay...eventually.  The future picks up the tab when you don't pick up all of it.  You victimize your own species without their consent by kicking the can down the road that way.  You want to rant about 'taxation without representation', try that one on for starters.

 

Corporations, businesses, whatever and whoever use a product and refuse to pay the real costs do that...that's you and me.  Ignorant and short-sighted.  Willful, blind stupitity indulged for selfish, self-serving purpose. In the end, that has to be categorized as amoral and immoral. That is a judgement...make of it what you will.  You will note I did not exclude myself.  So...in all fairness, neither should you.

 

That judgement applies to any that use or deplete a natural and/or non-renewable resource at the eventual expense of the People...the ones now alive, those who come after and ALL those who won't.  Pick how you want to deal with that and try to generate an argument against that truth.  Try hard.  IF you are still able to be intellectually honest, you won't be able to justify that practice to yourself, let alone anyone else.

 

So...tell me, good advocate for predatory capitalism and elimination of government regulation, how is that not the truth.  I'm waiting.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 4,743
Registered: ‎07-27-2011

Re: electric car mandate

Message 8 of 27 (206 Views)

 

         We can thank the Obama Admin. for requiring better gas mileage in our new vehicles , but of course the Far Right wont !!! Trump is removing those higher gas mileage requirements. Maybe he can require coal burning vehicles be manufactured - Hey anything to make America Great Again !!!

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 29,248
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: electric car mandate

Message 9 of 27 (211 Views)

scout - there are two issues there. Gail is talking about subsidizing the buyers of the cars you seem to be talking about subsidizing the car companies.

 

In either case it could be taken as either subsidizing the rich people buying the cars or the rich corporations making them.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,119
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: electric car mandate

Message 10 of 27 (229 Views)

GailL1 wrote:

Olderscout66,

i don't believe those development subsidies went to the end-user - they went to the industry.  In fact we are still subsidizing things in this manner which IMO should be pretty much standing on their own - rapid transit, Amtrax - the list goes on.

 

Tax advantage subsidies given to the end user are really just discounts for the product and they are hard to stop EVER especially if the product in question does not become competitive in stand alone pricing ( market pricing ) where the product is desired by those of all income levels.  You can apply that same thing to things like solar panels - still highly subsidized by state tax credits in some states.

 

I ask this question to especially you - why should government subsidize any item at the end-user level especially when the price of such items are cost prohibitive to many people - with or without the tax advantage subsidiary?

 

 

 

 


Because that lets the market decide the winners and losers.

 

You still getting a tax-writeoff for adding insulation to your home? That and 12 others expired in 2016 and Republicans blocked all attempts to reinstate them, despite the fantastic reductions in our consumption of fossile fuel they produced. See, all you need to do to halt even the most effective subsidy is to let GOPers get a majority in Congess.

 

Fact Jimmy Carter's energy conservation measures (esp. TAX SUBSIDIES FOR END USERS) did more to reduce our dependance on foreign fuel than any drilling until fracking got the subsidies it needed to get started.

 

We also need a huge increase in Government funded R&D into better batteries for cars and power generation, low-head hydro AND Nuclear.