ReVolt: Obama Wants You to Pay even More for Cars Nobody Wants

In a speech before the Daimler Trucks North America manufacturing plant in Charlotte, N.C. today, the president delivered his answer to rising gas prices: He wants to increase the $7,500 tax credit for alternative-energy vehicles to $10,000, earmark $1 billion to reward cities that provide infrastructure for such vehicles, earmark an additional $650 million for a research program to increase the range and decrease the price of the vehicles, and repeal $4 billion of tax incentives for oil and gas companies.

Read the rest at Hot Air.

35 Responses to ReVolt: Obama Wants You to Pay even More for Cars Nobody Wants

  1. Rob N. Hood March 8, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    OMG- as if we aren’t being drained of resources fast enough via the military industrial complex, now Obama has a another scheme to deplete our last pennies! He’s repealing tax write offs for our beleaguered oil companies and giving some to average people! Diabolical !!

    • NEILIO March 8, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

      You know, sarcasm has a place. This just doesn’t feel right for sarcasm yet, to me anyway. I mean if you want to be sarcastic about someone’s comments, that’s one thing. But to be sarcastic right off the bat, on the first comment about a story, that just seems defensive to me. As if this story has struck a sore spot with you, and you react with derisive sarcasm. Then you throw in the bit about the military-industrial complex, a subject that is not even discussed in the story BTW, just to try to push that button to get us righties riled up to be deflected onto that tangent. I do have to hand it to you though. You are pretty good at getting the subject changed to whatever you want to talk about.
      I suppose now you want us to go off on that tangent, but I’m afraid that I am going to have to disappoint you there.

      What I think of this story is that I am unwilling to subsidise another consumer’s choice of vehicle, while I am perfectly fine with them selecting a vehicle of their own choosing. In other words, if you want to buy one go ahead but don’t ask me to help you pay for it. Which essentially is what our president is proposing here. I don’t care what the benefits to owning an EV are. I don’t care if it’s supposed to save the world or whatever. You want one, pay for it yourself, then you can feel proud that you’re saving the planet like a good green leftist. But the leftists are not content with that because they want everyone to pitch in, even those of us who believe that CO2, which is presently .000390% of the composition of our atmosphere, is not a factor in global warming or cooling. To me it is as simple as that.

  2. Rob N. Hood March 9, 2012 at 8:09 am #

    Touchy touchy Neilio. Wow. Since I was the first to comment any normal person (I would think) would not rise to the level of being offended as if a certain individual was being targeted for said sarcasm. Neil… I think you are too narrow-minded and prejudiced (against anyone who seems Liberal to you). I don’t say that to offend, it just appears to be true. What I was demonstrating above was not merely sarcasm- but truly the amounts of money that seem to be in play are not even peanuts compared to the bigger picture. AND no only that but is such an inane article it just screams out for sarcasm. If you cannot see that or admit that, that is your problem- not mine. And oh, as usual you keep forgetting the number one rule for any of this, at least at present- freedom of speech. That said- if you want to criticize please try and do so in a less than knee-jerk manner. That is all I really am asking of you or anyone for that matter. Oh and again re: your “helping pay for stuff”… get in line. I have a very LOOOOONG list of absolute crap (IMHO) that I HATE paying for, of which I have absolutely NO SAY about, even on moral and ethical grounds. You Rightys and your crocodile tears only make me laugh.

    • NEILIO March 9, 2012 at 11:15 am #

      Your reply is obviously designed to push buttons. I see how you do this now. No doubt you are employing subtle but effective psychological manipulation to envoke an emotional response. I think that we can agree that the govt. spends way too much money. But let me ask you this. Is it wise for the govt. to spend even more money on subsidies for the purchase of EV’s? IMO it is not. I would like to know what you think about this specifically because I too have a very long list of things that I hate paying for and to compare those lists here would be a complete waste of time. So, do you think it is a good idea for the govt. to spend more money on this or not?

  3. Rob N. Hood March 9, 2012 at 8:11 am #

    And No Neil, I did’t want anyone going “off on a tangent.” In case you didn’t notice you did that all by yourself. I SERIOUSLY wanted to point out the inanity of the ARTICLE posted, and nothing else.

    • NEILIO March 9, 2012 at 11:25 am #

      I did not go off on that tangent. I merely pointed out that I believe you want us to veer off onto that tangent, and then refused to do so. And if your intent was to point out the inanity of the article, it is my opinion that you failed to do so. You did convey that you thought it was inane, but after reading the article I believed it had substance and it made sense to me. If it were inane it would have lacked substance or sense, so I disagree that it was inane.

  4. Rob N. Hood March 10, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    Then your threshold of inane is much different from mine. But I guess I knew that already. And how or where did I try the tangent thing? Please be more specific otherwise don’t keep bringing that up.

    • NEILIO March 10, 2012 at 8:52 am #

      You know perfectly well what I’m talking about as far as going off on a different tangent. To expound on that now would serve no purpose other than your purpose of changing the subject. As far as the aledged inanity of the article, I do not believe it is a matter of threshold, it is a matter of definition. You have yours, and I have the dictionary’s.

  5. Rob N. Hood March 10, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    Ha ha ha. I knew you were going to pull that. “talking about a tangent is just another ploy, blah blah blah. My question was a serious one and pertinent based upon your accusation. When it comes down the the finer points of anything that is pressed upon you, you bail. Isn’t the first time you’ve done that and I’m sure not the last. Be that way, whatever. It’s cheap and lame though.

    • NEILIO March 11, 2012 at 8:23 am #

      Check your hook buddy. That bait fell off in the second comment.

      • NEILIO March 11, 2012 at 1:44 pm #

        Hint: Read the first line in the first comment you made above. That’s where you’ll find the answer to your question.

  6. Rob N. Hood March 11, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    Ooooohhhh!!!! The beloved and beleagured OIL companies!!!!!! Soooo, sorrryy to pull them into this website!!!!! How fuelish of me!!!!! They are merely innocent and haloed bystanders minding their own bidness. Again, all apologies to you Neil, and your BFF’s.

    • NEILIO March 11, 2012 at 4:12 pm #

      I see what you’re doing. I’m tired of being psychologically manipulated, I get enough of that from advertising. What you’re doing is a trick. First you throw out the military industrial complex as a lure to steer the conversation away from EV’s. Hoping that the issue of the military industrial complex will evoke a response that is visceral, rather than intellectual. Once you’ve done that then you can vector the comments in any direction you want to take them. But this time I’m not biting, so you have changed the tactic. Now you make a post mentioning the oil companies. So now I’m supposed to become flustered and call you out and say “it wasn’t the oil companies, it was the military industrial complex you (explative)!” And thus get the exact reaction that you originally wanted. A visceral response, rather than an intellectual response.
      But I am not biting at this one either. I may not be the smartest person on the planet, but I have figured out your game. And I can promise you that it will no longer work on me.

  7. Rob N. Hood March 11, 2012 at 2:52 pm #

    Then again it was you who brought up the tangent thing. And it takes two to tangent does it not? So, ergo, you are the one who tangented are you not?

    • NEILIO March 11, 2012 at 3:50 pm #


  8. Rob N. Hood March 11, 2012 at 5:00 pm #

    Ok then Mr. Ostrich.

    • NEILIO March 11, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

      There you go again. You imply that I have my head in the sand, and the reaction that remark is intended to trigger is another visceral response.
      But here is an intellectual response.–surprising-truths-great-animal-myths.html
      FACT: Here’s another alleged animal habit that has given us a figure of speech. Since Roman times, ostriches have been said to be so dim that they react to danger by sticking their heads in the ground.
      They’ve thus become a metaphor for humans who refuse to accept reality, preferring to ignore the truth, like children sticking their fingers in their ears and crying: ‘Na-na, I can’t hear you!’
      In fact, however, ostriches react to danger in the most sensible, obvious way available to a flightless bird capable of running at 40mph. They skedaddle.
      So where does the myth come from?
      Well, ostriches swallow sand and pebbles to help grind up food in their stomachs. This means they have to bend down and briefly stick their heads in the earth to collect the pebbles. Bingo! Another false myth is born.”

      • NEILIO March 11, 2012 at 5:53 pm #

        Just like the myth of AGW I might add!

  9. Rob N. Hood March 11, 2012 at 7:06 pm #

    Very “non-vicseral”… if you say so. Just as with the tangent debate- you are completely innocent because you believe so. You are just as likely to go on a tangent as I am, and even more so IMHO, see above, as another example…

    Plus, do you not recognize metaphor? Allegory? Why must you be so black and white, so rigid, and thus so inflexible? (I know you take pride in being literal, and accurate, etc. but there are times when that doesn’t help).

    I am NOT playing a game. It is for simple give and take, via this format, for (hopefully) intellectual and challenging communication. If I challenge and/or hold anyone here responsible for their own stuff, well too bad. That is part of it. I accept the same. I don’t accuse you of trickery, etc. I accuse only that which I see as inaccurate, or confusing, or hypocritical. When I mention anything it is for honest reasons- it is not to derail anything. This world is MUCH more complex than you apparenlty are willing to see. And to pretend to try to dissect/excise a subject such as global warming/AGW as disconnected from any and all subjects you don’t like or don’t want to face is not my problem.

    • NEILIO March 11, 2012 at 7:39 pm #

      I’m laughing at you now.

      • Rob N. Hood March 12, 2012 at 7:09 am #

        Why? Explain yourself as I did above. Or are you afriad of being laughed at? I do not laugh (usually) I critique. There’s a difference. But that may not appeal to your sense of black and white.

        • Rob N. Hood March 13, 2012 at 7:03 am #

          Caveat to above. I have, on occasion, posted things to irk the wing-nut. But mostly for other reasons. And rememeber, Grasshopper, there are others visiting this site, or so I assume, and not all the posintgs are for your eyes only, although I realize it’s all about you.

  10. joe March 11, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Interesting discourse over a car nobody other than elites with a guilt complex wish to purchase.And I’m not “playing games.” Speak fact not folly.

  11. Rob N. Hood March 12, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    So joe, how is then that you do not speak fact?

  12. joe March 13, 2012 at 10:27 pm #

    So I’m to buy a “Brick?” (If you don’t know what a “brick” is Google it under Tesla) The battery fails and I must be towed and like other EV’s paying more for the battery than the cars worth? Give us all a break. Innovation built this country. That said, there must be a market for the new product and a want and need for the public. Do you have $40,000 for a car of this ilk? If so suggest that you purchase one. I will purchase one when I wish to, not when I’m forced to. That is the difference. Love my gas powered SUV that carries 7 people for $23,000 versus purchasing three EV’s that carry half the capacity. Have you purchased one? I doubt it, nor will you ever. Talk is cheap.

  13. Rob N. Hood March 14, 2012 at 7:45 am #

    The “fact” of yours I was referring to was of course that “nobody other than elites with a guilt complex want to purchase.” That is a statement of folly if there ever was one. That’s all. Thanks for the addition “facts” above, but I could post several quotes by owners that love their Volts. As you say, talk is cheap, and you use it up, as such, appropriately. And where oh where did I ever say you, or anyone else for that matter should buy one?

  14. joe March 15, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    The majority of the owners of Volts income exceeds $170,000.00. Does the average purchaser of a car have that income? I doubt it. Sounds like your friends as owners of Volts are the 1%, eh? Yes, talk is cheap. Get your facts straight.

  15. Rob N. Hood March 16, 2012 at 11:50 am #

    That income doesn’t reach the 1% levels. Sorry, try again. Once more also- complain to GM if it bothers you so much, Obama is not employed by them.

  16. joe March 18, 2012 at 11:11 pm #

    No, Obama owns them, or should I say we do using our tax paying dollars and I drive GM! Never again until Obama get’s his foot off the pedal to nowhere. Then I may reconsider. Obama’s Union votes cost a lot of money didn’t they? Oops, forgot, must keep our tires inflated and get a tune up. Ya right!

  17. Rob N. Hood March 19, 2012 at 2:50 pm #

    joe… this is very sad… very. But there’s a bright side that I’d like to draw to your attention. There’s still two more American car companies, so you may get products from them in the future if you so wish! Tis not true, as you say sad Joe, that Government Motors, oops I mean General Motors, is owned by any other riffraff beyond the beloved and pampered majority corporate share holders, of whom, help make the decisions of said company, including accepting a bailout from their government, which they have paid back- and which indeed saved many many jobs, not just for GM workers but many others as well. It was, and is, a shining example of how good a government can be for its country and countrymen. But I digress, and ramble on, don’t I? You may as well now get back to focusing on your hatred and anti-American beliefs.

  18. Joe March 25, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

    Yes, “very sad” you do no comprehend.

  19. Rob N. Hood March 26, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    No I no, ya know?

  20. Joe March 26, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    Inform me.

  21. Rob N. Hood March 27, 2012 at 7:07 am #

    How can I? I no comprendo.

  22. Rob N. Hood April 5, 2012 at 7:39 am #


    General Motors has pulled support from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit well-known for attacking the science behind global warming and climate change.

    The automaker told the Heartland Institute last week that it won’t be making further donations, spokesman Greg Martin said. At a speech earlier this month, GM CEO Dan Akerson said his company is running its business under the assumption that climate change is real.

    “We applaud GM’s decision and the message it sends — that it is no longer acceptable for corporations to promote the denial of climate change and that support for an organization like Heartland is not in line with GM’s values,” said Daniel Souweine, campaign director for Forecast the Facts, a group that urges meteorologists to talk more openly about climate change.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.