Chevy Volt Deathwatch - DOE puts funds on hold

[DaveinOlyWA]

ya... the estimated $3000-4000 i saved in tax returns while Bush was president will equate to 3 times that to pay for blank check bailouts authorized on his watch

[mr_zorg]

Originally Posted by bredekamp

Surely if GM dies, the Volt technology will be taken over by someone else. It's too far along to abandon.

You're kidding, right? If it's that far along, what do they need $10bn for?

[PriuStorm]

Originally Posted by rfruth

GM Ditches Volt for Geo Metro Hybrid? [video] : Gas 2.0

No description on this vid... I wasted 30 seconds watching it, peeked forward, read some of the comments that agreed with my assessment that this was a big waste of time.

[FL_Prius_Driver]

Originally Posted by ewhanley

I am not referring to the political aspects of the money, but rather the inefficient engineering and production required to spend $10B in capital to develop and produce one model of vehicle. Seems like the wheel is being reinvented when a prius with an aftermarket battery kit can essentially provide the same features as the proposed volt. $10B would buy all GM common stock several times over.

The design engineering has to be complete. Most of the manufacturing capital is either committed, or this was a big April Fool's Joke from the get go. Anyone familiar with engineering realizes $10 billion equates to about 50000 man-years of labor. If the Volt takes two more years to field, then this has an development team of 25000 people.....or the first 200,000 Volts are going to be free.

There is obviously something missing in this equation. It looks like a grab to fill a huge void having nothing to do with the Volt.

[Shawn Clark]

Originally Posted by Frayadjacent

With the current administration racking up $10-12 trillion in it's first four months and gambling on a better economy to foot the bill... I shudder to think about what 8 years would be like.

The administration has not racked up anything like that. There is a legacy trillion from Dubya this year and a few trillion going forward. The next 8 years are going to be nasty with regards to deficits as the previous 8 years of Social Security surpluses were squandered by "conservatives."

The healthcare mess that the conservatives have been intent on creating for the past few decades are coming to fruition now and will be a huge problem. Much of the problem going forward is their resistance to doing anything intelligent about healthcare costs, and doing all they could to protect a system that inflates twice as fast as everything else (decade after decade), produces 2nd world results, and is by far the most expensive in the world. One might argue it is also the least efficient based on outcomes, but since it is essentially bimodal the comparisons become complex. This is a major part of the problem for U.S. businesses who counterproductively backed the GOP healthcare obstinance for decades. They have only recently changed tunes on healthcare as they've come to realize that they are now worse off/less competitive as a result than if they had backed the other side. Imagine how much better off we would be if we had reduced healthcare cost inflation to the level of everything else back in the 90's. Compounded savings like that really add up...just like the compounded deficits of the past 8 years.

I will, however, continually posit that trying to spend our way out of our problems is like Churchill said - standing in a bucket and trying to lift ourselves up by the handle.

Actually, credible economists (not those clowns that have been discredited by this recession--see Greenspan, Laffer and all the other supply siders for the latter) realize that govt. spans some of the gaps that would otherwise lead to worse recessions. Individuals and companies cannot. Churches cannot. Charities cannot. What one hopes is that the government will be directed to spend in ways that advance the country during recessions so that the national economy will be more competitive coming out. Or we could ignore paying our bills, let our infrastructure crumble, let service costs (healthcare) skyrocket while twiddling our thumbs, and engage in a war off budget blowing a couple of trillion--oops, that was the last 8 years.

Credible economists also realize that one must plan to eventually pay off the borrowing, unlike the supply siders/conservatives of the GOP who believe they can grow out of it...or inflate out of it. The Fairy Tale of continually declining taxes has been exposed for the financial fraud it is. We tried that and have had the least growth in the modern era--even worse if you factor out spending growth.

The Democrats do believe in infrastructure spending, particulalry in a recession. The Republicans do not--see the Great Depression for an example of how that works. I've got problems with the way Democrats would do quite a few things, but compared to the Republicans/conservatives, it's no contest.

The lessons of the recession of early this decade were not learned unfortunately. Instead, conservatives chose to dig a deeper hole rather than putting some away for a rainy day--short term thinking in its purest form. The lesson should be to pay off your debts in good times so that you can borrow as needed to keep your economy afloat in bad.

[Frayadjacent]

You need to stop referring to the GOP and Bush as 'conservative'. They are not.

[Shawn Clark]

Originally Posted by Frayadjacent

You need to stop referring to the GOP and Bush as 'conservative'. They are not.

Sure... They espouse the same stuff as you fair weather conservatives and had your support for 8 years. Ironically, fair weather types are the root of the problem, completely out of step with the majority of the country, persitently part of the twenty odd percent that still condemns the Dems regardless and supports what the GOP is trying to do regardless.

Glenn Beck and others make the exact same claim about the GOP and Bush, yet when it comes down to it 70% of the rest of the country can't see any real separation left between you.

From watching them over the past several years it has become apparent that conservatives have no idea what they are. They've become so extreme that each claims their narrow view is the definition of the conservative movement and the rest are heretics--particularly those who fail. Conservatism has become a veritable Tower of Babel.

One thing is for certain, conservatives don't want to see any accountability in this country. The buck never stops with them, it's always somebody else's fault because their movement can never be wrong.

[Frayadjacent]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

Sure... They espouse the same stuff as you fair weather conservatives and had your support for 8 years. Ironically, fair weather types are the root of the problem, completely out of step with the majority of the country, persitently part of the twenty odd percent that still condemns the Dems regardless and supports what the GOP is trying to do regardless.

'Fair weather'? I'm conservative all the time. I never liked all the spending and BS that happened. However, many of us got complacent, and the GOP got caught up in the politics and (like all politicians) forgot that they represent us. This opened the door to massive collectivist political victories, which are moving toward more and more government intervention in our society and economy.

This could lead to a great conservative resurgence in the mid-term elections, but the larger part of me is afraid that there will not be enough organization nor a clear enough message for your average American to understand. And voting democrat is easier than thinking.

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

Glenn Beck and others make the exact same claim about the GOP and Bush, yet when it comes down to it 70% of the rest of the country can't see any real separation left between you.

That is simply because political terms are so watered down and incorrectly applied that they mostly don't mean anything.

Conservative to me means less government. Less regulation. Less interference. It does not mean Christian morals, or any subset of morals. I think the .gov has no business in marriage, sex or personal choices. What consenting adults do is beyond the domain of the .gov. IMO, hardcore religious people are liberals of a different tune.

Leave me alone to succeed or fail as I see fit, to 'pursue happiness'. As long as I'm not infringing the equal rights of anyone else, and no one infringes mine, the government has no business getting involved.

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

From watching them over the past several years it has become apparent that conservatives have no idea what they are. They've become so extreme that each claims their narrow view is the definition of the conservative movement and the rest are heretics--particularly those who fail. Conservatism has become a veritable Tower of Babel.

You're right that the right side of the spectrum has become disorganized and is in disarray, like I mentioned above. But heck, the left looked like that until after the primaries. And without a rockstar candidate who reads pretty speeches from a teleprompter well, and simple platitudes that so many bought, they likely would have devoured each other.

I personally think we need term limits on all representative positions in government. How can it be a government of the people, by the people and for the people if many of the seats have the same people in them for decades? After all, politicians are like diapers - they should be changed often and for the same reason.

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

One thing is for certain, conservatives don't want to see any accountability in this country. The buck never stops with them, it's always somebody else's fault because their movement can never be wrong.

I have to say you're wrong there. The right side of the spectrum tends to believe greatly in personal responsibility and not blaming your failures on others. However, with our philosophy comes the real possibility of failure. I'm talking bank failures, foreclosures, bankruptcies, losing life savings and all of those horrible things. They are natural parts of free economies.

Contrary to that,for example, the housing bubble was caused by the left's pushing of social justice through forcing financial institutions to give loans to people that couldn't afford them. They would never own up to it, though. Now the proposed solution for the 'forclosure crisis' is to bail out homeowners who cannot afford their homes.

Collectivism failed, and the solution offered will be more collectivism.

What will Americans learn if the consequence for poor decisions is not failure?


Anyway, here's what sums up my conservative political philosophy:

"What makes this country unique and great is the fact that our founding fathers believed so strongly in individualism that they placed the rights of the individual above the rights of the collective society, or the "common good." It was founded on the precepts of individual freedom and individual responsibility. It is not the role of government to protect you from yourself, your bad choices, poor judgment, ignorance or bad luck. It's not the role of government to provide you with food, shelter, medical care, vacations or employment or anything else. Nor does the government have the right to take away what is yours to provide these things for others. The only legitimate role of the government is to protect your rights from the infringement of others. That means law enforcement, criminal justice and a strong military. If you want to give your money to someone who is having a hard time that is fine, matter of fact the people of this country give more by far than any other nation on earth. But the government should not be able to take your money and give it to others to provide these things."


I am sadly afraid that Americans are simply no longer up to the animating contest of freedom, such as our founders provided for us. When Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman after the Constitutional Convention what we were given, he replied "A Republic, if you can keep it." I am gravely afraid that we cannot keep it much longer.

[hobbit]

Boy, did we call it a year ago, or what?
.
_H*

[Shawn Clark]

Originally Posted by Frayadjacent

This opened the door to massive collectivist political victories, which are moving toward more and more government intervention in our society and economy.

"Fair weather" couldn't be more fitting. You embraced them until everyone else recognized them for the conservative fools they were. Complacent? You guys were going full speed ahead, running willy-nilly over anything and everything you opposed regardless of "conservative principles" (now there is an oxymoron!) "Complacent" would be better replaced by "complicit" and considering the ferocity of that complicity, even that is too tame.

And voting democrat is easier than thinking.

Rather folks are voting for Democrats because they started thinking again. The simple platitudes offered by conservatives are at odds with the results of conservative government. Republicans (conservatives since they have expunged almost every moderate or non-conservative from their ranks) have targeted the lowest common denominators since the mid/late 90's, and the 2000's have been an orgy of it for them. There is a reason that college educated folk now vote primarily for Dems.

That is simply because political terms are so watered down and incorrectly applied that they mostly don't mean anything.

You mean like how conservatives have routinely misapplied socialism, liberal, libertarian, communism and progressive? How about "islamofascism" which is an absurd self-contradictory joke of a label. Yep, the vast majority of us (not to the right of Dick Cheney) have watched your movement water terms down until they had no real meaning.

Conservative to me means less government. Less regulation. Less interference. It does not mean Christian morals, or any subset of morals. I think the .gov has no business in marriage, sex or personal choices. What consenting adults do is beyond the domain of the .gov. IMO, hardcore religious people are liberals of a different tune.

Another example of your distorting (watering down) definitions, especially trying to call religious conservatives liberals. This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about, yet you don't get it. What you listed above is Libertarian, NOT conservative.

The real defining characteristic of conservatism (political, religious, economic, etc) is that of protecting the perceived status quo of the majority or dominant plurality against other influences. This often entails pushing authority down to smaller increments to where local "chieftains" can wield power over folks on a personal level that would make folks on a national level blush. The Taliban is extremely conservative, as were the Pharisees. So were National Socialists and Communists. I'm naming these not to equate them to American conservatives, but to point out the root characteristic of conservatism in human nature. Individual freedom is NOT a conservative principle by nature, and is in fact counter to it at times. Libertarian characteristic, yes, conservative, no.

It's not just conservatives that are lost, libertarians who thought they could co-opt the conservative movement have lost their bearings as well. If you believe what you wrote, then you are one of them, not a conservative.

Leave me alone to succeed or fail as I see fit, to 'pursue happiness'. As long as I'm not infringing the equal rights of anyone else, and no one infringes mine, the government has no business getting involved.

That's called "libertarianism" not conservatism. Seems that neither libertarians nor conservatives understand the difference anymore.

But heck, the left looked like that until after the primaries.

Not really, at least not like you see it, but you were too focused on the presidential race to notice apparently. You don't seem to understand the difference between the regimented/disciplined party approach of the conservative GOP as compared to the standard disjointed coalition approach of the Democrats. Will Rogers said it best, "I'm not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat." Republicans are more dangerous in the majority because of their discipline. They should also be more effective in the minority for the same reason.

BTW, if the "left looked like that" then what does that make the GOP? Answer: the right...as in conservatives. Thanks for proving my point again.

And without a rockstar candidate who reads pretty speeches from a teleprompter well, and simple platitudes that so many bought, they likely would have devoured each other.

Look at the jealousy oozing from the above. "Simple platitudes?", the guy has brought some intellectual discourse and real science and economics back to government that was devoid of it during conservative rule. "Simple platitudes" and empty symbolism is 8 years of Dubya. Simple platitudes include: "cut out govt. waste", "smaller government", "the free market is always right", "lower taxes will stimulate the economy", blah, blah, blah.

I have to say you're wrong there. The right side of the spectrum tends to believe greatly in personal responsibility and not blaming your failures on others.

You are dreaming. They are the exact opposite of that. I've never seen a group so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own misjudgmements and errors. Trying to blame their leadership (who they still follow like sheep) for the failure of their own ideas is yet another proof that they can't take responsibility for their actions. Too bad, because if they did, they could move on and provide a needed counterbalance.

There is certainly a need for conservative influence, but like any other ideology it is but a component of what is needed for pragmatic and effective representative govt. Moderation is what is needed, but to get back to moderate we have to undo 8 years of conservative excess.

However, with our philosophy comes the real possibility of failure. I'm talking bank failures, foreclosures, bankruptcies, losing life savings and all of those horrible things. They are natural parts of free economies.

Well, conservatives certainly brought the country a buttload of failure! "Mission Accomplished!"

Contrary to that,for example, the housing bubble was caused by the left's pushing of social justice through forcing financial institutions to give loans to people that couldn't afford them.

Funny, because it looked a lot like failed "risk analysis" in pursuit of higher profits. It was never decreed that banks should forsake doing actual income verification or eliminate downpayment/income ratio standards. Many of those loans went to above average earners who couldn't afford them either. It's not just the working poor--who ironically tend to vote for clowns like Dubya--that took on too much debt with the help of unscrupulous lenders.

Those 500 TRILLION (no typo) in derivatives had something to do with it as well--can you say "D-E-R-E-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N"? Why are we stuck with TARP? Because the CDS contracts would take down every major bank in the country otherwise driving us into Great Depression overnight. Goldman Sachs benefitted by getting out first, and has recovered north of $30 billion in bets made against AIG...$30 billion that will be paid by you and me. If I had my way we would have GS pay that $30 billion back out over time...but conservatives socialized their losses and will privatize their gains.

"Financial Innovation" has been a corporate conservative buzzword for the past decade. Turns out it was all a lie that has fleeced the nation.

The housing bubble was caused by many things, the primary one being artificially low interest rates that made high risk loans look profitable on paper. Another was the failure of Greenspan and others to use existing regulatory authority to enforce existing laws. Greenspan was so asleep at the helm that he was UNAWARE of the preponderance of neg-am, alt-A, and other problem loans during his watch. This is Mr. Supply Siding, Deregulated Free-Market, Financial Innovation Conservative #1 we are talking about.

Collectivism failed.

No, unregulated markets with zero oversight failed. They failed in the 1920's too. They failed in the S&L crisis as well.

Anyway, here's what sums up my conservative political philosophy:

"What makes this country unique and great is the fact that our founding fathers believed so strongly in individualism that they placed the rights of the individual above the rights of the collective society, or the "common good."

I suggest you reread the Constitution and the history surrounding it. It replaced the Articles of Confederation which were not strongly binding enough for our Founding Fathers. In the Constitution you will find several aspects of "collectivism" such as "general welfare", "common defense", etc.

You might also take note that the Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution as it was originally ratified. While I'm all for the Bill of Rights and oppose conservative (and less frequent liberal) attempts to trample it, I can't help but note that it is in the form of amendments rather than integral.

The Constitution is not some rigid, dead document hanging like a millstone around the nation's neck, but something that can be and will be amended and interpreted to maintain a vibrant, productive nation as its citizens' see fit. The conservative argument is a false one that they discard at their own leisure (e.g. whenever they have the reigns of govt.)

When Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman after the Constitutional Convention what we were given, he replied "A Republic, if you can keep it." I am gravely afraid that we cannot keep it much longer.

Conservatives espousing essentially your views have attempted to destroy the Republic several times, most notably in 1860. I pray they continue to fail.

I consider myself a pragmatist, willing to employ whichever ideology or combination of ideologies fits a problem.