GM is pulling back on EVs

[jtmat]

https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-10-TrueCostofEVs-BennettIsaac.pdf

This probably won't be enough for you either, but here is one.

Who wrote it is important. But I'll read it with an open mind as I have time. I'll respond back by the weekend.

Thank you for the link!

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

Not fooling with you. I went back, and don't see the direct link the source paper. Instead of insults, how hard would it have been to post the direct link to the source?

I'm not waddling through 200 of your rambling links to find something.

Post the link or stop your complaining. It is not an unreasonable ask.

This is a perfect example of why people block you. Such a waste of time. All you had to do was post the direct link to begin with.

Hello; This reply is not directed to jtmat. While i would prefer to think he is indeed too dumb to click onto the arrow just seven posts above, I do not think such is the case. He is playing some sort of game, but one with a result he favors.
That result being he avoids having to directly respond to the information about near $50,000 in subsidies/monies over the purchase price paid by us taxpayers on each EV sold. The assumption being he has no good answer for the oblivious.
I also assume that by now those who follow these threads he and I wind up it already know what sort of person he is.

I see K4fxd posted a link to the story. We now await the response.

Who wrote it is important.

Could this be the way to dismiss the information. Thing is the information on EV incentives and other such funding has been around in scattered places for some time. We all already had some knowledge of the financial thumbs on the scales before the story was pieced together.

 

[tripleyellowmustang]

A troll? Tripplepeemustang, mitch, etc. are trolls. Trolls don't contribute to the conversation, except to post memes, angry rants, etc.

Greg took time to refute the two links you presented. While his language might be harsh, he has presented an argument.

You posted links used by fringe extremists and then want to call someone a fringe extremist? I dunno, maybe you didn't know about the links.

Jmutt gettin his groove on.

 

[Mitch03]

Jmutt gettin his groove on.

Yes…..he’s def an Otis T type of guy!

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/state-offers-residents-major-incentive-103000781.html


To qualify for the program, drivers must turn in gas-guzzling cars that are either at least 12 years old or have failed emissions tests.

The best part is that these Colorado-exclusive rebates don’t cancel out or overlap with federal programs, which means that they can be stacked on top of a $7,500 credit from the Inflation Reduction Act for a total of $13,500 in savings on your EV.

This sounds a lot like the cash for clunkers program.

 

[jtmat]

Hello; This reply is not directed to jtmat. While i would prefer to think he is indeed too dumb to click onto the arrow just seven posts above, I do not think such is the case. He is playing some sort of game, but one with a result he favors.
That result being he avoids having to directly respond to the information about near $50,000 in subsidies/monies over the purchase price paid by us taxpayers on each EV sold. The assumption being he has no good answer for the oblivious.
I also assume that by now those who follow these threads he and I wind up it already know what sort of person he is.

I see K4fxd posted a link to the story. We now await the response.

Could this be the way to dismiss the information. Thing is the information on EV incentives and other such funding has been around in scattered places for some time. We all already had some knowledge of the financial thumbs on the scales before the story was pieced together.

My basic response: a LOT of fuzzy math. Ignoring the total picture made this report less than what it could have been. Overall I believe it will be enough to serve the purpose for which it was written (if you understand think tanks).

The report was not balanced. For example, they didn't mention fossil fuel subsidies (i.e. real price of gas is over $10). They should have also mentioned agriculture, and utility subsidies since these are connected as laid out the report.

They didn't mention the positive impact (i.e. economic -- jobs).

Long story short, this paper did not move my stance. The EV subsidies have been in place for decades -- in one form or another. That means they have been in place over many different types of people (not to bring up a certain topic so immature people don't get triggered).

As I've said repeatedly, I don't care if you don't like subsidies. I'm concerned about putting Americans to work on future technologies, EV range and interested in the technology going into these vehicles. Not sure why you so desperately want everyone to be angry with you. Sounds miserable to live life like that. Sound like lunatics when you attack everyone who does not rage with you.

Not until recently did you folks bring up this fake anger. Get over it. That ship has sailed. Not even a change in 2024 will change the trajectory we are heading. Too many people in the right positions have $$$$$ invested.

Now leave me the f alone about your fake anger political subsidy discussion. I'll post my American successes (factories, etc.), range, technology, and the occasional tanker fire for those interested. If not interested, feel free to skip my posts or block me. Or be the troll... I like living in the minds of trolls.

 

[sk47]

Overall I believe it will be enough to serve the purpose for which it was written.

Hello; Fair enough. Since the purpose is to point out the massive cost to taxpayers to the tune of around $50,000 per EV.

Long story short, this paper did not move my stance.

Hello; Such never was considered. Always figured on some sort of spin. The surprise is the spin is so mild.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't care if you don't like subsidies.

Hello; Noted. Not so sure very many members of this forum like the idea of helping EV owners skip paying the full cost of the vehicles. But such is what is happening currently. Owner pays around $50 K and the rest of us taxpayers pay the other $50K of total costs.
I get you do not care what i think about the share i wind up paying. That you are also on the hook for a share of that cost and are fine with it is your choice.

 

[Bulldog9]

You clearly still haven't read anything I posted

Shellenberger - discredited by the people he misquoted

Brown himself saying he did not say what the media said he did

If you want to be taken seriously you need to look far more closely at what you post.

I'm not sure how I can be accused of being a troll. I posted clear evidence with links to back it up that clearly refute what you said. That is not trolling by any definition I have ever seen. In fact YOU could be accused of trolling by refusing to even acknowledge my responses and just posting the same old drivel.

Perhaps you could show some courtesy and at least acknowledge my responses that demonstrated your misunderstanding. After all YOU quoted Brown supposedly, but it seems Mr Brown doesn't agree with you on his OWN website!

Incidentally Shellenberger would have to use common layman's terms because he is an author and not a climatologist. That should make you wonder about the validity of what he says surely?

You point out ONE area where Shellenberger was accused by one source as misquoting. I'm sure there are other debatable topics, and he is an environmental activist, absolutely not a Climatologist, but neither are we. Read the book, not the negative reviews. His point is that in the 'climate (cottage...my insert) industry there is a political agenda that is single focused and generally all pointing towards Man made contributions and therefore so solutions, and this apocalyptic is NOT helping.

I encourage you you dig a bit deeper on Brown, His twitter post (which I hate Twitter) basically said he intentionally altered his research and title so it would be published given the current atmosphere of politics effecting academia. He stood by his research otherwise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...patrick-brown-climate-wildfires-breakthrough/

In His own words. https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

I pointed to these two examples NOT to be a climate denier, but to point out that there is a real problem in discussing climate, global warming, its causes, and its solutions. It is not healthy or good, and the Media is a huge part of the problem in fostering an almost religious zeal to peoples responses. Science is not a CUDGEL forced on institutions or societies without question.

My point is simply that the single narrative of anthropogenic sources are the sole reason for current climate change IS a hoax, and short sighted, and destructive. To society, to Academia, and to governments. This is why I pointed out Brown and SHellenbergers book which does a very good job at addressing this issue. I will ALSO say that the opposite is true. Those who deny that we have any impact or effect or as some call climate deniers are equally as flawed. We have to look at it all, not ignore what does not fit our narrative.

Yet, this is the current global social climate we are in, everyone is on the edges/fringes and talking in extremes. Looking for evidence that supports their forgone conclusion.

It is SCIENCE that the global temperatures have risen 1 degree Celsius since 1860 (quoted earlier) The PROJECTIONS and models are what is PROJECTING catastrophic disaster. We are fools if we are not willing to look at how absolutely WRONG most of these models have been, and are always shifting.

Then again, thought I am not fatalistic, and am a lifelong conservationist, nature lover, hiker, responsible, and student of geography and history (current and ancient) I am also mindful that at some point in our planets history, the Mediterranean was a lush river valley, the Saharan wasteland was once a lush oasis, Antarctica was not covered in Ice and seems to have been likewise lush. Sea levels rise and fall, the list can go on and on.

That does not mean we say 'to hell with it' but we can not look at or do science with any agenda but the truth and balance. I do not feel this is happening. The Earth is NOT static, coastlines change dramatically, lush lands turn to deserts, great inland seas drain to the ocean and create grand canyons. My point is that the earth and WE are subject to forces far beyond our control and we must keep this in focus.

I must ask though, why you react so negatively to ANY questioning of the current climate narrative? It appears to me, that you are perhaps a bit of a zealot in your outlooks, and look to poke fights and have arguments, engage in hyperbole and ad hominin attacks, ignore valid points, cherry pick errors.

I said you acted like a Troll, because in the few pages I have looked at your posts, this is what I see.

Perhaps we can have a logical discussion/debate. Frankly, I don't come here for social debates, is a car forum, but like any discussion group, topics cary.

Best to you

 

[Bulldog9]

My basic response: a LOT of fuzzy math. Ignoring the total picture made this report less than what it could have been. Overall I believe it will be enough to serve the purpose for which it was written (if you understand think tanks).

The report was not balanced. For example, they didn't mention fossil fuel subsidies (i.e. real price of gas is over $10). They should have also mentioned agriculture, and utility subsidies since these are connected as laid out the report.

They didn't mention the positive impact (i.e. economic -- jobs).

Long story short, this paper did not move my stance. The EV subsidies have been in place for decades -- in one form or another. That means they have been in place over many different types of people (not to bring up a certain topic so immature people don't get triggered).

As I've said repeatedly, I don't care if you don't like subsidies. I'm concerned about putting Americans to work on future technologies, EV range and interested in the technology going into these vehicles. Not sure why you so desperately want everyone to be angry with you. Sounds miserable to live life like that. Sound like lunatics when you attack everyone who does not rage with you.

Not until recently did you folks bring up this fake anger. Get over it. That ship has sailed. Not even a change in 2024 will change the trajectory we are heading. Too many people in the right positions have $$$$$ invested.

Now leave me the f alone about your fake anger political subsidy discussion. I'll post my American successes (factories, etc.), range technology, and the occasional tanker fire for those interested. If not interested, feel free to skip my posts or block me. Or be the troll... I like living in the minds of trolls.

Oil Subsidies are in my view ludicrous and border on immoral. I have written my congressmen for years about this. YES major companies that comprise our infrastructure and core engineering and energy production must be healthy, but when profits are in the Billions, there

As EV's and storage/generation are emerging technologies I have less objection to them.

But let's face it, the whole thing is convoluted and crooked. When GE and Big Oil can write 100% of it's profit off for Green Credits or research and not contribute a penny to the Tax base, something is wrong. There should be some limitation to ensure that companies are actually paying taxes on revenue (profit), but ALSO leaves room for companies to conduct research and development.

 

[Bulldog9]

https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/2023-10-TrueCostofEVs-BennettIsaac.pdf

This probably won't be enough for you either, but here is one.

I read that yesterday on a plane, not sure I buy it as presented.

 

[jtmat]

Hello; Fair enough. Since the purpose is to point out the massive cost to taxpayers to the tune of around $50,000 per EV.


Hello; Such never was considered. Always figured on some sort of spin. The surprise is the spin is so mild.

Goodbye; there is no spin because I'm not against what angers you. Be upset about subsidies. That is fine. Plus, it was an interesting read, I actually enjoyed it. I hadn't seen some of the links they presented. I gained some knowledge and a different perspective.

It is like people being upset because Musk is receiving subsidies for SpaceX. When you can walk your butt to space let me know. Can't say I even care for Musk (his public profile, I don't know him personally). I do respect what he has done and the amount of energy he puts into his companies.

Hello; Noted. Not so sure very many members of this forum like the idea of helping EV owners skip paying the full cost of the vehicles. But such is what is happening currently. Owner pays around $50 K and the rest of us taxpayers pay the other $50K of total costs.
I get you do not care what i think about the share i wind up paying. That you are also on the hook for a share of that cost and are fine with it is your choice.

You missed my point. The research is not complete. Put in a simple way so you understand: It is false to state tax payers are paying the other 50k of total costs (or however you want to describe it). Am I going to sit here and calculate the costs? LOL... no, but I'm not going to "stand" on some half-baked report and profess it to be true.

This report is doing exactly what it was written to do.

 

[sk47]

Science is not a CUDGEL forced on institutions or societies without question.

Hello; Very much agree with this point of view.

but we can not look at or do science with any agenda but the truth and balance. I do not feel this is happening

Hello; Also agree with this stance.

 

[Bulldog9]

Damn, you guy's follow Alinsky to the letter.

Some clearly do. It is the prevailing social narrative, and I can't stand it.

 

[sk47]

It is false to state tax payers are paying the other 50k of total costs (or however you want to describe it).

Hello; I will concede a point. That point being the amount of total costs passed onto taxpayers. May not be $50K. We do know for sure there are incentives and subsidies. So, if the totals are some less or some more when added up there is for sure some amount involved.
So, the question becomes who is paying these costs if not the taxpayers. Corporations and companies do not wind up paying as all costs for them wind up passed onto their customers.
I did not say each citizen winds up paying as something over half of citizens do not pay any taxes at all.
I suppose it could be said the cost is just added to the national debt of over 33 trillion and counting as borrowed monies. Thing is such is not a long term solution. Already the interest payments on that debt approach $1,000,000,000 a year. I suppose that can might be kicked some further down the road, but not much longer. Fitch downgraded the USA this past year which ought to be a warning of sorts.

New question. So, I get you do question the amount. But whatever the amount of subsidies/incentives may be. Who is paying the cost?

 

[K4fxd]

The report was not balanced. For example, they didn't mention fossil fuel subsidies (i.e. real price of gas is over $10).

You have said this many times. Will you please link a report that shows it?

Sponsored