Obama Admin Proposes $2B for Alternative Fuel Vehicles

[Kaivball]

Mr. President, our Federal debt is $17 trillion (grown almost $7 trillion under you administration) and your average annual deficit exceeds $1 trillion.

We don't have the money.

It's not the role of the federal government to extract capital out of the private sector and then spend it on projects that you decide you like.

Stop the insane spending.

Federal spending has grown to 24% of GDP when the 80 year demonstrated average revenue is 18% of GDP. You have put us on an unsustainable and irresponsible financial path.

Reduce spending to 18% of GDP.

 

[wycolo]

Obama visited Smith Inc in Kansas City during last campaign. Well, it was twice as close as Tesla Motors.
Smith is into railroad tugs that can work inside factories and special purpose heavy trucks. This van definitely ICE as it sped across northern MO in its way to KC. US36 = destined for greatness on the TransContinental SuperCharger Corridor [shameless plug]. :smile:
--

 

[jeffro01]

Do we really need a 1:1 ratio of charging to parking spots? I doubt it. The "Walgreen model" is pretty silly--no one spends more than a fraction of an hour at Walgreens, so you can't get useful amounts of charge while you're there. It's at destinations where you'll be spending upwards of 3 hours where charging will be useful: e.g. malls, theaters, airports, hotels, offices. As battery tech improves, nearly all charging will be at home, at night, and (we can hope) operating as part of a SmartGrid configuration to help the power system operators manage the incremental load intelligently. Done right, EVs and wind are natural complements.

Fair enough. I should have went one step further with the thought I was having. The reason why I have the vision I have regarding the parking spot ratio is I believe the charging rates will get much faster allowing for a large range of battery capacities based on ones individual needs. So, if you had something that only held a 50 mile charge but could charge fully in say 15-30min then you could get around almost an entire day from stop to stop running your errands because you knew the charging spots would be there when you needed them. If you needed to go further you could buy a car with a larger battery, etc.... Hopefully that doesn't sound to silly.

Jeff

- - - Updated - - -

Mr. President, our Federal debt is $17 trillion (grown almost $7 trillion under you administration) and your average annual deficit exceeds $1 trillion.

We don't have the money.

It's not the role of the federal government to extract capital out of the private sector and then spend it on projects that you decide you like.

Stop the insane spending.

Federal spending has grown to 24% of GDP when the 80 year demonstrated average revenue is 18% of GDP. You have put us on an unsustainable and irresponsible financial path.

Reduce spending to 18% of GDP.

I don't really think politics belongs in this thread. I really want to respond to your "facts" and "figures" but I won't.

Jeff

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I don't really think politics belongs in this thread.

Agree 100%

 

[ggies07]

Oh yeah, the other reason why I made this thread was about how Tesla is an American made car. That right there should be a highlight....even though that is diving into politics when it doesn't have to. Just shows that we can get of oil and still be "American"

 

[Kipernicus]

While I agree we should try to keep politics out of this thread, there is a valid argument that instead of spending $2B, other options might be to cut out tax breaks for oil companies, raise gas taxes, disallow drilling on federal land, have another look at agricultural policies that support ethanol (E85 is still 85% gas), or any number of politically unpopular choices.

I'm interested to see what happens in Norway and if that might provide a roadmap for the US.

 

[Doug_G]

Funny way to start an apolitical thread using the title "Obama Admin..."

I'd like to see a reduction in subsidies for oil companies, no-net-energy-gain ethanol production, and the like. Then there'd be plenty of money to subsidize a transition to more sustainable energy...

 

[Robert.Boston]

@Kipernicus: the $2B is supposed to come from increased fees on oil & gas companies, which is equivalent to rescinding subsidies there. The quid-pro-quo that the President might have to give to get this program is an increase in drilling on federal lands. So, @Kaivball, this wouldn't increase the deficit.

[moderator's note: I agree that in a "policy" forum we're going to have some politics here, but sweeping pronouncements about one's view on the role of government borders on off-topic. Please, let's keep the debate focused on the topic at hand.]

 

[brianman]

I don't really think politics belongs in this thread.

Disagree.

Funny way to start an apolitical thread using the title "Obama Admin..."

Agree.

I have nothing more to say in this thread because anything I say would apparently be simultaneously on-topic and off-topic.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I have nothing more to say in this thread because anything I say would apparently be simultaneously on-topic and off-topic.

About the on-topic and off-topic matter I think that the moderator's note has clearly pointed out what are the borders of this matter. As Robert says in a policy forum some politics is involved. But pronouncements of our own views about Government decisions are clearly off-topic. I think that Robert is right.

 

[brianman]

But pronouncements of our own views about Government decisions are clearly off-topic.

So prior to this post there are 30 posts. Of those, the following posts are off-topic by this criteria: 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28. Then another 5 are primarily discussing what's on-topic or off-topic. So 19 out of 30 posts are off-topic or about defining the topic. Seems a bit absurd to me.

Perhaps this is the "over moderation" I've heard referred to recently by multiple members regarding the TMC forum. Or perhaps it's an example of how the moderator's task on the forum is challenging because there's little clarity in the initial post about what's on topic. Or perhaps it's something else.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I am sorry Brianman but I don't agree with you. I gave a look to the posts that you mentioned and I didn't see pronouncements of our own views about Goverment decisions, that is to say discussing about Goverment decisions. I only saw comments about the matter of financing Research and Development on electric cars and biofuels.

 

[JRP3]

Perhaps this is the "over moderation" I've heard referred to recently by multiple members regarding the TMC forum.

This. I don't like to criticize mods too much because it's a thankless job, but this has always been the most heavily moderated forum I visit, and I think the mods over do it trying to keep discussions on too narrow a path. That's just not how conversations work. We end up with too many threads, making the forum more difficult to follow and probably making moderating it more difficult as well. I think we need to loosen up the reins a bit and let people talk.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

@JRP3
I disagree with you. In this particular case the moderator remembered us that is off topic to pronounce our own views on Government proposal or decisions.
The topic here is the Goverment proposal in itself. Our views about the fact that the Government proposal or decisions is right or not don't concern the topic. Otherwise this would be a political forum not a forum dealing with electric vehicles and environment. And when it comes to environment it's not a matter of political colour. It's a matter that concerns everybody independently of their political views.
So I think that the moderator made the right thing.

 

[wycolo]

The Executive Branch's job is, in part, to propose legislation. Referring to this euphemistically as 'the Administration proposes' xx as opposed to 'the Obama Administration proposes' xx, should not be a requirement for initiating polite discussion. Giving the administration its actual name (Obama) is not just cause for launching into partisan rant, even though it is apparently a red flag for some. Remembering here that the Bush Administration made some very good initiatives for EVs and got them passed.
--

 

[ggies07]

The Executive Branch's job is, in part, to propose legislation. Referring to this euphemistically as 'the Administration proposes' xx as opposed to 'the Obama Administration proposes' xx, should not be a requirement for initiating polite discussion. Giving the administration its actual name (Obama) is not just cause for launching into partisan rant, even though it is apparently a red flag for some. Remembering here that the Bush Administration made some very good initiatives for EVs and got them passed.
--

Well, I would just like to say as the OP, I simply stated his name because he's our President right now. It had nothing to do with partisanship. Plus, he's actually stated several times he wants to move forward with our energy set up and there are obviously those that do not.

 

[JRP3]

@JRP3
I disagree with you.

And I disagree with you. Kaivball's post was labeled as simply political but I think it's a valid point to discuss where funding will come from. That led to a response from Robert about the funding source, and frankly I would have liked to have seen jeffro's response with facts and figures that he felt would have been too political. Funding methods and facts and figures should not be political. Instead of an interesting debate on the topic and related topics we are instead debating about what we should be debating about.

 

[Kaivball]

And I disagree with you. Kaivball's post was labeled as simply political but I think it's a valid point to discuss where funding will come from. That led to a response from Robert about the funding source, and frankly I would have liked to have seen jeffro's response with facts and figures that he felt would have been too political. Funding methods and facts and figures should not be political. Instead of an interesting debate on the topic and related topics we are instead debating about what we should be debating about.

Thanks.

It shouldn't matter whether it's the wife or the husband that's spending us into oblivion.

Fact is that we are spending 24% of GDP when historical average revenues (in spite of dramatically different personal and income tax rates) hover around 18% of GDP.

We don't have those $2 billion. When spending is down to 18% of GDP then we can gladly have a discussion on what we should spend the federal dollars on and what the role of the federal government is. But until then I cannot support any new spending by either party, regardless of who is in charge.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Instead of an interesting debate on the topic and related topics we are instead debating about what we should be debating about.

Excuse me.
In this thread the topic is:

Obama Admin Proposes 2B for Alternative Fuel Vehicles

The matter of where to find the money in the frame of the budget of a Government is not a related matter because being a political matter is a completely different matter even of a different kind. So any statement on this matter is off topic and, just in case, another thread should be started on this matter.

But there is another aspect.

I don't think that it is good to discuss a purely political matter in this forum.

 

[Kaivball]

Excuse me.
In this thread the topic is:

Obama Admin Proposes 2B for Alternative Fuel Vehicles

The matter of where to find the money in the frame of the budget of a Government is not a related matter because being a political matter is a completely different matter even of a different kind. So any statement on this matter is off topic and, just in case, another thread should be started on this matter.

But there is another aspect.

I don't think that it is good to discuss a purely political matter in this forum.

Of course it's important where the money comes from.

We don't live in the land of unicorns and rainbows.

When I propose that every American needs to own a Tesla will you discuss the merit of that proposal only or will we also have to talk about how every American will have the money to buy one?

How can we discuss the merits of a government proposal without discussing where the money comes from and whether or not its the function of the government to spend this money on that subject?