FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by init4fun

Hi Whell, on this we agree, as much as I also like the idea of pure electric vehicles, I am not for the tax subsidies, the free market alone should be the determiner of whether they are truly ready for mass market acceptance. If any of my three gas powered vehicles manages to die before I do, I will buy an EV , whether my fellow taxpayers foot part of the bill or not. In fact, I'll go as far as to wonder; if someone wouldn't buy one unless it was subsidized, how committed are they to the concept in the first place

Ah, a free market purist. Except that the miracle of free markets depends on rational actors with excellent information maximizing their self interest. In the actual world both the rationality and the information are very imperfect. And the fix is in all over the place. Markets need a lot of regulating if they are to serve the interest of the community well.

[init4fun]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Ah, a free market purist. Except that the miracle of free markets depends on rational actors with excellent information maximizing their self interest. In the actual world both the rationality and the information are very imperfect. And the fix is in all over the place. Markets need a lot of regulating if they are to serve the interest of the community well.

Hi Donquixote99,

In some cases yes and in others no. It doesn't in the least bother me, for example, for the government (all of us taxpayers) to subsidize healthcare, to me healthcare is a basic human right that shouldn't be denied to people who legitimately can't afford it. But to ask my fellow taxpayers to subsidize my choice of one type of car propulsion method over another is, in my opinion, a bridge too far. I either can afford (and want) an electric car or not, and if I want one I'll buy it without putting part of the burden of my choice on the taxpayers of our country. And, if I didn't want one, no reasonable amount of subsidy $$$ would change my mind.

That's the great thing about being a for real political Independent, my being beholden to no political party leaves me free to pick & choose what MY conscience will tolerate VS choking down the party line on the nuances of issues like govt. subsidies.

Subsidies, , , some good, , others not so much......

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Glad you asked!

I have been all for electric vehicles....when such vehicles are able to be supported by market conditions. That's not really where we are today.

Electric vehicles are subsidized through manufacturer incentives and tax credits for the purchaser. I'm not in favor of these incentives: it simply shifts costs from the manufacturer to the taxpayer, then the taxpayer is hit again to pay for the subsidized purchase. When the subsidies ended - saw this first hand during the Obama years - companies who started up based on the promise of incentives went belly-up when those incentives were not paid out.

I would be in favor of subsidies for public or private universities to conduct research on battery technology or materials technology that could then be adapted for use electric vehicle use.

But we better be damned careful what we do with any tech advancements or developments paid for with taxpayer dollars, so we can stay away from idiotic bureaucratic blunders like THIS.

I will say that I finally got to ride in a Tesla when I was down in Tempe last week. The Uber driver that took me back to the airport had a Tesla. It was a damned impressive car.

....when such vehicles are able to be supported by market conditions. That's not really where we are today.

The EV are selling faster than they can build them, so who is not where today? The wingnuts.

Electric vehicles are subsidized through manufacturer incentives and tax credits for the purchaser. I'm not in favor of these incentives: it simply shifts costs from the manufacturer to the taxpayer, then the taxpayer is hit again to pay for the subsidized purchase. When the subsidies ended - saw this first hand during the Obama years - companies who started up based on the promise of incentives went belly-up when those incentives were not paid out.

Obama years? He who saved Detroit? Singing the same song "Solyndra"?

Give me a list of companies that went belly up. If not for Obama's bailout, GM would have gone under and perhaps Chrysler too. So OK to subsidize ICE manufacturers but not EV builders?

And how about the oil subsidies we have been paying out from tax payer pockets for how many decades?

I would be in favor of subsidies for public or private universities to conduct research on battery technology or materials technology that could then be adapted for use electric vehicle use.


Yet another wingnut talking point. Battery technology is advancing leaps and bounds, way past the university stage and this is just stall technique. Major manufacturers have built mega factories just to build batteries.

But we better be damned careful what we do with any tech advancements or developments paid for with taxpayer dollars, so we can stay away from idiotic bureaucratic blunders like

Scare mongering and that link was posted by PIO on AK a couple of weeks ago and those batteries are for power storage, not EV.
Trump cuts taxes for the wealthy (as Obama said, "to people who don't need them") is OK, but not to new technicnology developments?

In a nutshell, no different from all those trumpers posting on AK. Same issues, same talking points and as I said, same playbook.

Whell you forgot the main scare tactic, our grid will fail if all cars became electric overnight.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by init4fun

Hi Donquixote99,

In some cases yes and in others no. It doesn't in the least bother me, for example, for the government (all of us taxpayers) to subsidize healthcare, to me healthcare is a basic human right that shouldn't be denied to people who legitimately can't afford it. But to ask my fellow taxpayers to subsidize my choice of one type of car propulsion method over another is, in my opinion, a bridge too far. I either can afford (and want) an electric car or not, and if I want one I'll buy it without putting part of the burden of my choice on the taxpayers of our country. And, if I didn't want one, no reasonable amount of subsidy $$$ would change my mind.

That's the great thing about being a for real political Independent, my being beholden to no political party leaves me free to pick & choose what MY conscience will tolerate VS choking down the party line on the nuances of issues like govt. subsidies.

Subsidies, , , some good, , others not so much......

Perfect example of individual interest vs community interest. Individuals will notice no incremental climate effects if they choose EV or petrol cars, and can feel free to choose based on personal preference. BUT the community as a whole, and the world as a whole, will see very bad effects if the majority keep choosing petrol. So the incentives are in the community interest.

Climate damage can also be seen as a 'tragedy of the commons,' with the atmospheric carbon carrying ability of the planet as a 'commons.' Lots of people find it in their individual money interest to use as much of that capacity as they can, but every one acting together gets us into huge trouble. Markets don't allocate 'commons' well.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Perfect example of individual interest vs community interest. Individuals will notice no incremental climate effects if they choose EV or petrol cars, and can feel free to choose based on personal preference. BUT the community as a whole, and the world as a whole, will see very bad effects if the majority keep choosing petrol. So the incentives are in the community interest.

Climate damage can also be seen as a 'tragedy of the commons,' with the atmospheric carbon carrying ability of the planet as a 'commons.' Lots of people find it in their individual money interest to use as much of that capacity as they can, but every one acting together gets us into huge trouble. Markets don't allocate 'commons' well.

A very good explanation indeed for justification for the world as a whole to migrate to EV.

California 'mandated' to solar power in generation in single & multi family homes since 2018 and commercial buildings since 2020. I think this is along your 'common interest' concept, whereas before only individual home owners that use a lot of power even considered solar installations at home. In fact, most people were unaware of the benefits of solar generation.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

....when such vehicles are able to be supported by market conditions. That's not really where we are today.

The EV are selling faster than they can build them, so who is not where today? The wingnuts.

Electric vehicles are subsidized through manufacturer incentives and tax credits for the purchaser. I'm not in favor of these incentives: it simply shifts costs from the manufacturer to the taxpayer, then the taxpayer is hit again to pay for the subsidized purchase. When the subsidies ended - saw this first hand during the Obama years - companies who started up based on the promise of incentives went belly-up when those incentives were not paid out.

Obama years? He who saved Detroit? Singing the same song "Solyndra"?

Give me a list of companies that went belly up. If not for Obama's bailout, GM would have gone under and perhaps Chrysler too. So OK to subsidize ICE manufacturers but not EV builders?

And how about the oil subsidies we have been paying out from tax payer pockets for how many decades?

I would be in favor of subsidies for public or private universities to conduct research on battery technology or materials technology that could then be adapted for use electric vehicle use.


Yet another wingnut talking point. Battery technology is advancing leaps and bounds, way past the university stage and this is just stall technique. Major manufacturers have built mega factories just to build batteries.

But we better be damned careful what we do with any tech advancements or developments paid for with taxpayer dollars, so we can stay away from idiotic bureaucratic blunders like

Scare mongering and that link was posted by PIO on AK a couple of weeks ago and those batteries are for power storage, not EV.
Trump cuts taxes for the wealthy (as Obama said, "to people who don't need them") is OK, but not to new technicnology developments?

In a nutshell, no different from all those trumpers posting on AK. Same issues, same talking points and as I said, same playbook.

Whell you forgot the main scare tactic, our grid will fail if all cars became electric overnight.

I'm not making lists for you. You can do your own homework. You can start with this WaPo OpEd:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8f9_story.html

No matter how you slice it, the American taxpayer has gotten precious little for the administration’s investment in battery-powered vehicles, in terms of permanent jobs or lower carbon dioxide emissions. There is no market, or not much of one, for vehicles that are less convenient and cost thousands of dollars more than similar-sized gas-powered alternatives — but do not save enough fuel to compensate. The basic theory of the Obama push for electric vehicles — if you build them, customers will come — was a myth. And an expensive one, at that.

That piece was from 2012, concurrent with the DOE tightening grant requirements. You mentioned Solyndra, not me. But in fact the embarrassment of Solyndra is what prompted the DoE to start pull back on grant dollars.

I'm not really into scare tactics and talking points. I prefer facts, and your claim that University research is a stall tactic is just absurd. Here's just one example. I picked this one because it involves my Alma Mater:

https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2022/c...vator-under-35

The magazine selected Fang for its list of “outstanding innovators who are younger than 35” because of her research’s potential to make batteries for electric vehicles run safer and last longer. In theory, her technology could double the range that electric vehicles can currently cover on a single charge.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

So, what's the fake news here? That the IRS originally listed in the qualifications for the job that qualified applicants must be willing to use deadly force? Or that the IRS removed it from the list of qualifications?

The Internal Revenue Service does not plan to use the nearly $80 billion it's set to receive in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act to hire 87,000 new agents in order to target middle class Americans, a Treasury Department official told ABC News and documents verify, rejecting a claim widely circulated by Republican lawmakers and right-wing media personalities.

A sizable portion of the money will go toward improving taxpayer services and modernizing antiquated, paper-based IRS operations, according to Treasury and the IRS, in an effort to update an agency well documented as being chronically starved of resources for decades.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trea...ry?id=88495613

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm not making lists for you. You can do your own homework. You can start with this WaPo OpEd:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8f9_story.html

No matter how you slice it, the American taxpayer has gotten precious little for the administration’s investment in battery-powered vehicles, in terms of permanent jobs or lower carbon dioxide emissions. There is no market, or not much of one, for vehicles that are less convenient and cost thousands of dollars more than similar-sized gas-powered alternatives — but do not save enough fuel to compensate. The basic theory of the Obama push for electric vehicles — if you build them, customers will come — was a myth. And an expensive one, at that.

That piece was from 2012, concurrent with the DOE tightening grant requirements. You mentioned Solyndra, not me. But in fact the embarrassment of Solyndra is what prompted the DoE to start pull back on grant dollars.

I'm not really into scare tactics and talking points. I prefer facts, and your claim that University research is a stall tactic is just absurd. Here's just one example. I picked this one because it involves my Alma Mater:

https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2022/c...vator-under-35

The magazine selected Fang for its list of “outstanding innovators who are younger than 35” because of her research’s potential to make batteries for electric vehicles run safer and last longer. In theory, her technology could double the range that electric vehicles can currently cover on a single charge.

EV is the future and every major car manufacturer is migrating towards this in leaps and bounds. Thank you Mr. Obama for screwing up.

MSU? This is before or after basketball practice.

Car manufacturers are investing Billions and Billions in both EV and battery technology. And I am sure they are all waiting for MSU to come up with the next breakthrough EV battery; 1000 mile range, 3 minutes charging time and of course lifetime warranty?

Universities often get technical funding and this is how industries support graduate students in major universities and primarily this is for PR. I am one who got generous educational support from State of Illinois for years in grad school. This is done more to generate interest in a particular area of science & engineering besides the goodwill this generates towards the benefactor. Overall this is chump change compared what companies spend on in-house R&D. And in state universities, the IP remains with the university and the state, so this is not as simple a it seems. Most of this work is done to publish papers so that the professors can get tenured. Grad students do all the work and the master publishes.

[Chicks]

GM stock is about to dust Tesla stock, analyst says

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gm-st...183227042.html

"GM is investing more than $35 billion through 2025 to advance our growth plan, including rapidly expanding our electric vehicle portfolio and creating a domestic battery manufacturing infrastructure," said GM CEO Mary Barra in a statement. "Progress on these key strategic initiatives has improved our visibility and strengthened confidence in our capacity to fund growth while also returning capital to shareholders."

Whell, as always, is full of crap.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The Internal Revenue Service does not plan to use the nearly $80 billion it's set to receive in funding from the Inflation Reduction Act to hire 87,000 new agents in order to target middle class Americans, a Treasury Department official told ABC News and documents verify, rejecting a claim widely circulated by Republican lawmakers and right-wing media personalities.

A sizable portion of the money will go toward improving taxpayer services and modernizing antiquated, paper-based IRS operations, according to Treasury and the IRS, in an effort to update an agency well documented as being chronically starved of resources for decades.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trea...ry?id=88495613

Great. We'll see if that's how things actually turn out.

By the way, the left has been blaming the "87,000 new agents" story on "epublican lawmakers and right-wing media personalities." The information about what the IRS would use the funding for actually came from a US Treasury report last year. From CNBC:

The department estimated in a 2021 report that the funding may cover about 87,000 employees, which has been widely reported. However, these hires may include a range of positions, such as auditors, customer service and IT workers, the Treasury clarified in a statement to CNBC on Wednesday.

So, ABC News is telling the story one way - seems like it was written in a was that would leave the reader thinking that the 87,000 number is overstated - and CNBC a different way - that the 87,000 number isn't in dispute, but that not all the 87,000 will be "agents".

That's fine. I never thought that the 87,000 number was specific to "agents" and I've posted in this thread about that.

So, let's pull in a tie-breaker, your friends at FactCheck.org:

The Inflation Reduction Act includes $79 billion for the IRS. Social media posts misleadingly claim the IRS will now hire “87,000 new agents” to investigate average citizens. But most new hires will provide customer services, and enforcement efforts will be aimed at “high-income and corporate tax evaders,” a Treasury Department spokesperson said.

I posted earlier that in this thread that the additional funding could result in approximately new 2262 special agents, raising the total number to somewhere around 4100. Therefore, with all due respect to ABC news, I'll stick with that estimate.