Chevy Volt Deathwatch - DOE puts funds on hold

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

'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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.)

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.

 

Hopefully Malorn sold his junk ... I mean Chevy dealership, before it was too late.

 

So $10 Billion for how many VOLTS? But oh yeah, this is a loan that will be paid back by whom when GM folds?
Let me keep my money and I'll decide what technology is supported when I buy my next PRIUS, opps Freudian slip, I meant next car.

10,000 - 20,000 Volts the first year for $10 Billion? And probably with the restricted allocations to certain dealerships.

And when they will hit the show room floors? 2011 for full production.

With GM bankruptcy very possible June 1, 2009 the Fed may back the warranty, but if there are not trained techs to fix it. Then what?

I'll be damned if I am going to ship my car to California to get it fixed under my government warranty paid by YOU, all my neighbors, and myself included.

Curious...How many people are on the VOLT waiting list?

SORRY, the VOLT will not save GM.
IF selling 10,000 - 20,000 cars in the next 1-2 years is going to save GM, I'm all for it. BUT GM needs to perform major TRIAGE.

Save what you can and help preserve some jobs rather than let everyone die.

 

I have to admit, $10 Billion seems like a lot of money for development of a car that is supposed to be almost finished anyway. You could probably even build an entirely new manufacturing plant somewhere for less than that.

I'd rather see that money go to Tesla or some other small firm that has less beauracracy and more work happening.

 

They would never own up to it because it's 100% false. There is no empirical data that supports this assertion. In fact, the data says quite the opposite: CRA banks have lower foreclosure rates, and were less likely to issue ARMs. They were also less likely to sell loans to 3rd parties. They were less likely to issue 'nodoc' loans. And so on.

For more information, google "The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977: Not Guilty".

And from a common sense POV, if the banks were "forced" to make bad loans, don't you think they would have raised a huge stink about it? Many of the banks are public companies that have a duty to shareholders.

 

I need to know exactly what the 10 Bn dollars are for? If they already have mules around, that means the R&D is mostly done, and this is just a fine tuning stage. They have more than a basic idea how the volt is going to be (since the volt's powertrain is in the cruze) and only thing left to do R&D on is possibly the volt's body (besides durability testing for the powertrain). But to my understanding the volt's body will be based heavily on the cruze.... so where is the 10 billion going? I don't think it cost 10 billion to do testing, GM already has the floor space from the shuddered auto plants. GM is nothing but a money pit at the end of the day, and they are about to sink pontiac and GMC down the drain to momentarily save them.

Read this DOE as a tax payer, Please, please give that 10 billion to Tesla, Fisker or the other many American electric car companies (like the Phoenix motorcar company)
yes GM will fall, it will hurt us bad, but there are so many other smaller american car companies that are ready to succeed. Even VW is surpassing GM in global sales.

 

Sorry to keep this thread off-topic:

No one was complaining because everyone was swimming in money. There's a couple YouTube videos that helps simplify and visualize how this crisis came to be. Check 'em out:

 

Holding up the DOE funding isn't saying anything about the Volt per se. It's about the viability of GM. It does seem to be too expensive to compete in the marketplace at $40K, but I doubt that's the reason. GM mysteriously ditched the hybrid they marketed successfully in California some years ago. That may be the root of the Obama team's doubts about GM. Maybe they can be persuaded to revive that technology.

I wish the Administrator would delete inane political posts that have nothing to do with the thread.

 

Good vids. A couple of things I'd like to throw in there.

The reason there was such a demand for investing (and hence a reason to increase supply by lowering home loan qualifications), was economic progress in developing nations. Due to globalization and modernization, more money has been going to developing nations. The wealthy on those countries now need somewhere to invest their cash. Mortgage backed securities did the trick, but there initially wasn't enough demand.

Also a big issue was the analysis of bond security ratings wasn't updated to take into account "liar loans" - so many were still AAA rated, when they were riskier than they appeared.

The video also doesn't mention lots of people defaulted on their mortgages because they had short term fixed / variable interest loans - where the interest rate shot up passed what they could afford. They should have seen that coming.

These videos showed what happened in the real-estate bond market - but doesn't explain how it jumped to regular credit markets. Simple. AIG provided the insurance for these bonds - when bonds went bust, AIG had to pay them off - leading to them going bust. AIG defaulted on it's short term lending to businesses (called "commercial paper"), causing a big mutual fund company to loose money for the first time in it's history. This froze short term lending to business, making day to day business grind to a halt (short term lending is essential to modern business).


So there wasn't any "liberal" agenda of forcing banks to loan to less qualified individuals. Banks did it because they could make short term profits like every other bank was. They should have seen this coming in light of "liar loans."

Home owners who borrowed more than they could should have known borrowing on short term fixed rates was a big risk if they can't refinance to a lower fixed rate later.

Bond rating agencies should have realized those bonds weren't AAA with the current loan qualifications required. Might not be good that these agencies are paid by the banks - a bit of a conflict of interest.

Plenty of blame to spread around - but I don't think you can blame liberals directly.

Note: Most of my info comes from NPR's Planet Money show and This American Life, which some may say has a liberal bias...


As to the original topic...too bad. It would be great to see plug-in hybrid by an American car company.

 

"GM mysteriously ditched the hybrid they marketed successfully in California some years ago."

You mean the EV1? That was an all-electric vehicle. No gas required.No oil changes, no 'tune-ups' per se. Just pure 100 to 160 electric miles, fuel up at home whilst sleeping. See "Who Killed the Electric Car" moviefor more depressing info. Or Darell's Electric Vehicle Page.

 

Yea, GM's successfully marketed hybrid some years ago? How'd I miss that? Oh, maybe he meant GM's Guzzler pickups, that turned off at red lights. No, those weren't successfull ... so I'll have to wait to hear what I missed. On a serious note, it is sad to think the Volt may not make it ... and that the Motor City is in ruins. If it weren't for armored vehicles, one couldn't tell the difference between parts of fallujah versus detroit





what a mess