By on July 22, 2016

BMW X5 xDrive40e PHEV

Yesterday the Obama administration announced “an unprecedented set of actions” to grow the U.S. plug-in electrified vehicle market.

The initiative represents a broad collaboration between federal agencies, state governments, major automakers, utilities, and others to aid the ongoing push to make electric cars viable alternatives to the internal combustion variety.

Perhaps chief in a laundry list of public and private sector agreements is up to $4.5 billion in loan guarantees for commercial scale charging — including fast charging — to create a nationwide network.

As a manufacturer, Tesla has nearly gone it alone with its Supercharger network. Nissan has provided Level 3 chargers as well, but the new initiative is being signed onto by Tesla, Nissan along with other major manufacturers. These include General Motors, Ford, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz USA.

The Obama administration said the plan comes “on the heels” of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Sustainable Transportation Summit earlier this month.

Despite only making it 40 percent of the way toward a goal of one million plug-in electrified vehicles by December 2015, the administration says much progress has been made.

“In fact, in the past eight years the number of plug-in electric [including plug-in hybrid and battery electric] vehicle models increased from one to more than 20, battery costs have decreased 70 percent, and we have increased the number of electric vehicle charging stations from less than 500 in 2008 to more than 16,000 today – a 40 fold increase,” said the administration.

To kick things to the next level, more is needed, and the broad PEV market stimulus plan includes the following:

  • Unlocking up to $4.5 billion in loan guarantees and inviting applications to support the commercial-scale deployment of innovative electric vehicle charging facilities;
  • Launching the FAST Act process to identify zero emission and alternative fuel corridors, including for electric vehicle charging across the country, and standing up an effort to develop a 2020 vision for a national network of electric vehicle fast charging stations that will help determine where along the corridors it makes the most sense to locate the fast charging infrastructure;
  • Announcing a call for state, county, and municipal governments to partner with the Federal government to procure electric vehicle fleets at a discounted value;
  • Leveraging the power of data and hosting an ‘Electric Vehicle Hackathon’ to discover insights and develop new solutions for electric vehicle charging;
  • Publishing a guide to Federal funding, financing, and technical assistance for electric vehicles and charging stations; and
  • 35 new businesses, non-profits, universities, and utilities signing on to DOE’s Workplace Charging Challenge and committing to provide electric vehicle charging access for their workforce.

‘Unprecedented’

“Today, in collaboration with the Administration, nearly 50 industry members are signing on to the following Guiding Principles to Promote Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure,” said a White House fact sheet of an “unprecedented” electrified vehicle coalition being “forged.”

“This commitment signifies the beginning of a collaboration between the government and industry to increase the deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.”

The plan builds on existing work and public-private cooperative partnerships.

Speaking for all, the Obama administration said “we endorse the following guiding principles to enhance electric vehicle use and create a national, household, workplace, and urban charging infrastructure that is available to all Americans:”

  • Drive the market transformation to electric vehicles by making it easy for consumers to charge their vehicles with grid-connected infrastructure that is accessible, affordable, available and reliable, and interconnected with other low-carbon transportation options where feasible.
  • Promote electric vehicle adoption by increasing access to charging infrastructure and supporting the development of plug-in electric vehicles that are as accessible, available, and convenient as gasoline-powered vehicles.
  • Promote a robust market for vehicle manufacturers, utilities, equipment service providers, and support industries that ensures a consistent user experience, customer choice, and allows for a streamlined permitting process.
  • Enhance American manufacturing competitiveness, innovation, and the development of advanced technology.
  • Attract and leverage private, State, and Federal investment in electric vehicle deployment, infrastructure, research and development, and education and outreach.
  • Enable smart charging and vehicle grid integration through solutions such as demand response, and other energy storage and load management strategies.

Further details can be seen in the Fact Sheet posted by the White House.

This article was originally published on HybridCars.com.

[Image: BMW]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

98 Comments on “White House Announces Up To $4.5B in EV Infrastructure And ‘Unprecedented’ Public/Private Market Growth Plan...”


  • avatar
    yamahog

    ugh. Why not just plow the money into scientific research? If batteries were as cheap and robust as iron engine blocks, everything else would sort itself out.

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      It’s one thing to invent something and another to put it into wide use. The former is useless without the latter.

      One can criticize specific elements of the proposal or whether the government should be involved. But *some* sort of plan for cooperation will be necessary if we are avoid the whole VHS/Betamax debacle of wasted effort and angry consumers resulting from purely free-market approaches.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        …Because the guys legislating VCR development via 5 year plans, did so much better and all….

        History, even going back to long before humans, have demonstrated the fragility, and ultimate misallocations and failure common to all monocultures. All “cooperation” does, on a culture wide scale, is brush detail under the carpet and pretend reality is less complex than it is. Temporarily allowing for an ultimately unsustainable runup of technical debt, so to speak. Just like substituting some anointed ratings agency’s “debt rating” for proper due diligence, does in the financial realm.

        With the end result being the World Wrestling Federation, instead of a proper sport.

      • 0 avatar
        yamahog

        You talk about wasted effort but don’t address VW, Toyota, Panasonic, Tesla, Samsung, BYD, and Sony’s (et. al) duplicated efforts in battery research.

        If we had the technology to make energy storage as power dense as gasoline and as cheap as base metals with charging as quick as ultra capacitors, there wouldn’t be any need to incentiveize the adoption of vehicles.

        And we’re past the point of VHS/Betamax problems. There’s an SAE standard for charging.

        • 0 avatar
          DC Bruce

          “Duplicated effort” is how things get discovered and, ultimately, done. The “duplication” continues until an optimum solution is found; then it ends. Success is not guaranteed; that’s why a “risk premium” is necessary for those who do succeed. This “solution” risks mountains of stranded capital, invested in what turns out to be an inferior infrastructure. As of right now, there is no process that allows a battery to be charged for even 250 miles of range in anywhere near the same time it takes to fill a vehicle tank with a petroleum product that will provide that kind of range. That’s the problem, and this isn’t going to solve it. As others have pointed out, under the current state of the art, EVs may make sense as commuter fleet vehicles which do short drives and return “home” to be charged every 24 hours, during which they can sit unused for 8 hours or so necessary to “re-fill” their tanks. As far as I know, there is no battery technology that tolerates high-amperage charging (which is required for a “fast charge) on a sustained basis. So, this is right up there with the dumb “minitel” system implemented by the French government in the 1980s, just as the PC era was beginning. The minitel was a dumb terminal connected to a mainframe by — for the time – low bitrate telephone lines, reflecting the state of computer art at the time.

        • 0 avatar
          jhefner

          You mean like three different scientists in three different countries perfecting the rocket; three different groups in three different countries perfecting the turbojet engine, etc.

          Companies need a reason to sink major capital into a new idea; whether it is government subsidy, or hopes of owning the market and making back way more than they invested once it is perfected. Companies will only co-operate on a major project either when forced to by the government, or when they know each player is too small to go it alone (Airbus.) Society as a whole still benefits.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “If we had the technology to make energy storage as power dense as gasoline and as cheap as base metals with charging as quick as ultra capacitors, there wouldn’t be any need to incentiveize the adoption of vehicles.”

          you’re presuming that’s even possible. the “duplication of effort” led everyone to similar solutions because those solutions are the best we have right now. nothing else has the energy density, robustness and long life. there are some promising new things in the lab, but they only have one of those three characteristics.

          it’s like that even with internal combustion engines. we have a fuel (nitromethane) with which a 500 cubic inch V8 can make 10,000 horsepower. why aren’t we using it in mainstream cars? because even though you can make a lot of power with it, your engine won’t last more than a few seconds, and it’s so hilariously prone to detonation that you need to run nearly a 1:1 air:fuel ratio.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    I do wish that the administration would realize that EVs are constrained by the technology itself, not by supply or demand.

    Improve or replace the battery, and the rest of it will follow. The market would absolutely love an EV that was affordable, had long range, could be recharged quickly, and that didn’t lose its ability to store power over time; no encouragement would be necessary.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      We also desperately need a uniform charging protocol.

      In the US, I’ve said for a while that all EV mfrs should adopt the Tesla format, and then work out a payment protocol for all players, including Tesla customers.

      • 0 avatar
        zerofoo

        Well said.

        The only thing worse than range anxiety is plug anxiety.

      • 0 avatar
        orenwolf

        Definitely. It’s hard to argue at this point that Tesla’s lead in charging infrastructure isn’t a serious reason to at least attempt to licence their charging capability. Where are all these Bolts that are supposedly arriving before the Model 3 enters wide production going to charge away from home?

        • 0 avatar
          APaGttH

          Bolt production is starting October 2016 – as previously announced.

          http://www.businessinsider.com/chevy-bolt-october-production-2016-7

          …The Bolt EV has been in pilot production since at least March, and it may not be long before full-scale production starts.

          GM will begin production of the new Chevy electric car in October, according to a report in Automotive News (subscription required)….

          • 0 avatar
            orenwolf

            “…The Bolt EV has been in pilot production since at least March, and it may not be long before full-scale production starts.”

            Right. So, assuming they ramp up volume and sell like hotcakes, what are they going to do for away-from-home charging infrastructure? It makes a lot of sense for GM and Tesla to work out a licensing deal for Tesla charging stations IMHO. GM pays to license the ports, Tesla gets to partially subsidize the expansion of the network to prepare for model 3 demand, instead of them going it alone.

            I believe GM has basically said they aren’t going to bother with charging infrastructure, though – I wonder if this agreement changes that.

        • 0 avatar
          Carlson Fan

          “I believe GM has basically said they aren’t going to bother with charging infrastructure, though – I wonder if this agreement changes that.”

          Because GM has already figured out after studying the Volt that most/all are charged at home. Why bother with with a charging infrastructure.

          • 0 avatar
            orenwolf

            “Because GM has already figured after studying the Volt that most/all are charged at home. Why bother with with a charging infrastructure.”

            For the volt, sure – it has a range extender. What about people who want to take long trips with their bolts?

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            “What about people who want to take long trips with their bolts?”

            SORRY SIR THOSE CAN’T FLY! THEY COULD BE PROJ… PERJ… THINGS YOU COULD THROW AT PEOPLE!

          • 0 avatar
            Carlson Fan

            ‘For the volt, sure – it has a range extender. What about people who want to take long trips with their bolts?”

            I really don’t see EV’s with current battery technology as being practical long distance travelers. For now your better off w/ICE vehicle anytime you want to leave town. See my post below.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          ” Where are all these Bolts that are supposedly arriving before the Model 3 enters wide production going to charge away from home?”

          at the Level 2 charging stations we have at work, or I see at Meijer, or outside the mall, etc. you know, the places I actually *go* to and *don’t* see any Supercharger stations.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        The optimum charging protocol is still evolving. As is will be until it supports charging while driving down the highway at 150mph unattended. Or, 3000mph for air evacuated highway stretches .

        At some point, the gains from playing along with already existing infrastructure, will be great enough to warrant giving up the freedom to innovate for cost, or competitive, reasons. But electric cars are still at a stage where standardizing on a charging protocol, retains major similarities with standardizing on a fuel station protocol that still involves carrying oats to a horse’s mouth.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        It’s early to standardize the charging protocol when the batteries are inadequate and may ultimately be replaced by something else. Build it out now, and the odds that it will be an obsolete dinosaur.

        This is not an infrastructure issue, this is a battery issue. Electricity is fine, but batteries (at least in their current form) are pretty much crap for these purposes.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          @Pch101: Build it out now, and the odds that it will be an obsolete dinosaur.

          You’re right on that one. The 800v charging standard should be here in the 20’s and we should be preparing for that. If they are going to be installing CCS/CHAdeMO chargers (and the newer ones I’m seeing now are combos), they should at least have the site ready for 800-volt charging. We’ll probably see a lot of vehicles with 200 kWh batteries in the 2020’s and 800-volt charging is the only way you want to charge a battery that large.

      • 0 avatar

        Looking at the field it looks like CCS will become the standard. Right now there are still more CCS chargers in the wild then Tesla chargers(the Tesla chargers are better placed). Chademo is the most common in the US thanks to the leaf but CCS stations are being added quickly and many new stations are CCS and Chademo compatible. It looks like GM BMW and VAG are all signed on to CCS so I imagine that may be the way forward plus it’s SAE endorsed which should help. I imagine there will be a Tesla adapter like there is for Chademo.

        • 0 avatar

          Also it looks like Volvo and Mercedes have signed on to CCS and according to the WIKI Tesala became a member of the organization promoting CCS in March so I wonder if a CCS may be installed on the 3.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “the Tesla chargers are better placed”

          that *really* depends on what you’re doing. Tesla’s chargers are placed better for if you’re taking your car on a longer trip. but for day-to-day usage of an EV, the better placement for chargers is at stores, malls, parking lots, workplaces, etc.

    • 0 avatar

      @Pch101

      +1

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      that’s the PCH101 I love

  • avatar
    jimbob457

    How much government subsidy is going to be involved?

    In a world of fracking and $50 oil, how does continuing subsidies of EV’s in the US make the slightest sense?

    Maybe the best choice is just to mail me the government money directly.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      It’s a loan guarantee, not a subsidy.

    • 0 avatar
      orenwolf

      It’s a loan guarantee. Tesla took one of these and paid it back already, to the tune of approximately a billion dollars if I remember correctly.

      Tesla has also used deferred tax incentives to control how and where they build their factories. A time-honoured tradition for manufacturing facilities both north and south of the border I believe.

      • 0 avatar
        wsn

        It’s a subsidy, if the borrower can’t get a loan from a commercial bank and has to get it with the backing of the government.

        If it has a positive expected return, there is no need to get the government involved. There are plenty of private investors for that.

        • 0 avatar
          orenwolf

          Sure, fine, subsidized loan. That doesn’t mean there’s inherent taxpayer cost though, if it is repaid. Only if it isn’t – so it’s really the risk the taxpayers take on.

          Tesla had one of these loans, and repaid it already.

        • 0 avatar
          heavy handle

          wsn,

          The borrower can get a commercial loan, but at less favorable terms.

          Looking at the big picture, it may not be worth it for the borrower. I know Musk has commented that he would never again accept a government loan guaranty. Of course, he doesn’t have to. Wall Street is constantly knocking on his door offering him money.

          American tax payers are resentful and easily misinformed. You can pay them back early, with interest, and they will still be complaining about it decades later. Not worth the hassle.

          There will always be some talk radio demagogue proclaiming that “our tax dollars pay for Tesla,” when in fact it went the other way around: Tesla made the government a good chunk of money, and then kept-up their end of the bargain by employing Americans, using American suppliers, and building factories in America. In other words, Tesla, and companies like Tesla, pay our taxes.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            heavy

            wsn was referring to the private sector investor.
            There are plenty of these going around. And many entrepreneurs go about funding their companies and R&D by finding investors for their dreams.
            They get invested in the dream themselves.
            Even the public sector investor, known as WALL STREET is a better, IMO, option than forcing all of us to be investors.
            These investors vote with their wallets.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @jimbob457: In a world of fracking and $50 oil, how does continuing subsidies of EV’s in the US make the slightest sense?

      There’s a big piece of the drive to EVs that no one sees. The defense industry and the Pentagon need the same technology. Robotics is important to defense and we have the same battery density and charging issues. The defense robotics industry benefits from the cost reduction and research coming from the efforts of the transportation industry. The current EV fleet also serves as testers for the technology as well.

  • avatar
    RHD

    Meanwhile, internet rumors are putting Amber Heard in the same hotel room with Elon Musk, whose people are denying the story.
    If it’s true, our friend is repeatedly putting his fortunes and legacy in jeopardy to the manipulative, conniving “fairer sex”.

  • avatar
    slance66

    How exactly does the “administration” do this, given that they have no authority to appropriate funds> If they got together with the industry to agree on standards, that’s fine. But the rest of this would require Congress.

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    Waste of money.

    For a vehicle that you take out of town EV’s are a LONG way from being a viable alternative to an ICE for many reasons. Plus the advantages in efficiency over an ICE are lowest running down the interstate at 75MPH. So let’s just forget about loading up the EV for a weekend family vacation. Not feasible, won’t be for quite awhile. That leaves them for the other 98% of the trips we take.

    The biggest market for EV adoption right now is homeowners that need them as a 2nd or 3rd car. Which they are absolutely fabulous for. This is the market that government and automakers should be focusing on to get them more mainstream.

    My Volt is a daily driver and I don’t think the engine has come on in almost 2 months. Its electric range isn’t anywhere near a full on EV. Where I live there are no public chargers that I know of and if there were why would I go out of my way & waste time to find one? I’ll just fuel up in my garage, that’s the beauty of the Volt or any EV. Forget the public charging infrastructure, it’s not needed for wider adoption of EVs IMHO. Focusing on developing better battery tech. and lower cost.

    46 miles in the Volt this morning running the AC and I still had 6 miles left when I got home. I’ll do another 60 mile day (couple other trips to make today) and not burn a drop of fuel or have a need for public charging.

  • avatar
    redmondjp

    Another problem is that new multi-family housing developments in urban centers don’t even have one parking space per living unit (with our betters assuming that most occupants will tow the line and use mass-transit). This leaves many residents having to flood out into nearby neighborhoods looking for parking.

    With this situation becoming more common, how are any EV owners in this situation supposed to be able to plug in overnight?

    I’m speaking from the Seattle area, where the war on cars rages on, but conversely, there are many EVs (mostly Tesla/Leaf) as well.

  • avatar
    mtmmo

    The White House issuing a press release titled “FACT SHEET” is both funny and ironic. TGIF

  • avatar

    This would seem to suggest Elio motors isn’t going to get some of the assistance they wanted.

    • 0 avatar

      A. The ATVM loan program at the Dept of Energy is completely different.

      B. Elio Motors hasn’t really mentioned their ATVM loan application in a while. The stock that they offered to the public in Feb for $14/share, after some initial volatility and profit taking, has hovered right around $20/share since April. My guess is that Paul Elio and Stu Lichter (Elio’s primary backer and holder of the long term lease on the former GM plant in Shreveport, makes him Elio’s landlord) and other insiders that hold shares issued previously will end up selling some of their shares to raise the $200+ million they need to start production.

  • avatar
    TheEndlessEnigma

    Who about that money staying or going to actual usable transportation spending….like care and maintenance of roads and bridges. We hear so much about highway funds under pressure and the failing road infrastructure….then money going elsewhere.

  • avatar
    ydnas7

    this will probably be a waste of money, better spent on local washing machine power points or CNG for trucks.

    why, because Tesla leads the way, building infrastructure for sub 200mile EVs now is stupid. Today, the benchmark for a people’s EV is no longer a new Nissan/BMW 80-100 mile EV but a used 200mile Tesla.

    later this year GM introduces a 200 mile Bolt, next year Nissan introduces a 250 mile LEAF II. Year after Tesla has the Tesla 3.

    ALL these cars have a 50 mile radius of never using DC chargers near home.
    Generally these cars have a 50-100mile radius of generally not using DC chargers near home
    Its only in the distance beyond 100miles that they even consider using DC charging…

    Can’t keep a DC network alive except for intercity travel, in the USA anymore. Tesla strangled that baby.

    • 0 avatar
      Felix Hoenikker

      Help me out here. All batteries are DC, and must be charged with DC power. If you want to have some fun, just try charging one with AC. Just don’t stand close enough to be hit by the fragments when it explodes
      If the EV has a built in rectifier, then AC power can charge it. Otherwise, you need a DC charger.
      What am I missing?

  • avatar
    George B

    Stupid waste of money. The main problem with electric cars is that the battery packs are extremely expensive. Rapid charging reduces the life of the most expensive part of an electric car. Actual electric car owners will install the necessary 240V wiring in their own garage. Some employers will install 208V or 240V wiring out to company parking spots. Those are the only two locations where electric cars will sit for the hours a day necessary to charge rechargeable batteries without killing their life. The charging station is mostly just an expensive extension cord with extra safety features.

  • avatar

    Why should the US Government make loan guarantees for anyone?

    If a company can’t get a loan, there’s a reason for that. Why should We The People co-sign for anybody?

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Companies that succeed hire people, help the economy and pay taxes.

      We like that sort of thing. Well, maybe you don’t.

      • 0 avatar
        wsn

        -“Companies that succeed hire people, help the economy and pay taxes.”

        Too many assumptions.

        1) The companies may not be successful even after receiving government backed funds. The risk is high, otherwise there would be investors other than the government willing to step in.

        2) Companies that got successful don’t necessarily hire people. In fact, they may even lay off people, because they finally got the money to bring more automation.

        3) Companies that got successful don’t necessarily pay more tax. It’s called creative accounting and hiding your profit overseas.

        4) Even if companies that receive government subsidy got successful, hired more people and paid more tax, we don’t necessarily benefit as a whole society. Due the unfair advantage these companies receive, their competitors may go bankrupt, lay off people and stop paying tax. There will be the moral hazard that there is great incentive to bribe government officials to obtain loan guarantees.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “If a company can’t get a loan, there’s a reason for that.”

      yep. GM and Chrysler could have gone through a normal bankruptcy, with private debtor-in-possession financing. Except they couldn’t get those loans. And the reason for that is that your revered “free market” looked the other way while the banks destroyed the financial sector with their CDO shenanigans, closing off credit to pretty much anyone.

  • avatar
    wsn

    That’s the commi’s way of doing it. Five year plan. Great leap forward. We need change. Blah blah…

    If I am to do it, I would simply abolish the payroll tax and fill the void by an increased fuel tax. Problem solved. It’s budget neutral.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    The first gas station opened just over 100 years ago without any government subsidies – prior to that gasoline was purchased primarily at drug stores. Within a few years there were hundreds of thousands of gas stations offering clean restrooms, windshield cleaning, oil and coolant checking, and free air all for 15 to 20 cents per gallon, and everyone made money from the station attendant to the CEO of the oil companies – without any special government subsidies. It is also worth noting that the car was seen as the savior of the city as horse pollution killed hundreds of thousands of people every year, and yet the government didn’t feel the need to subsidize infrastructure for ‘clean’ gasoline cars.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      Ports? government subsidized or built.
      Canals? government built.
      Railroads? government subsidized.
      Airports? government built.
      Highways and roads? government built.

      See a trend here? Transport gets investment from the government.

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        Nope, you are wrong once again. At the founding and industrialization of America many roads and bridges were built and maintained by private individuals and companies.

        Government doesn’t “invest” in anything it spends money, there is a difference…..

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          markf,
          I hate to wade into politics, so I’ll just plant this one seed. Effective governments think of spending as investment.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            No government in history has invested in anything. Governments tax and spend, plain and simple. Doesn’t matter what side of the political spectrum you are on. A true investment has the consent of the of those funding the investment. That is impossible with any government…..

        • 0 avatar
          Kenmore

          “At the founding and industrialization of America many roads and bridges were built and maintained by private individuals and companies.”

          Who had slaves & indentured labor. Hang tight, we’re headed back that way.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            You Lefties are obsessed with bringing back slavery, you are the only ones who talk about it, mentioning it in any post you can. Slavery was outlawed in 1863, many private roads, and bridges were built well after that.

          • 0 avatar
            Kenmore

            I’m not a Lefty, just a Hater.

            And you said “At the founding and industrialization of America..”.

            Who do you think did all the work in the Old South? Learn a little about how high up the skills ladder a slave could be employed. But always as only a slave.

            You think planters’ sons were going to sweat in a foundry, maintain the machinery of mills, pour/blow/cast glass etc. or that poor whites were going to be hired for these when so much was already invested in slaves?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Slavery was outlawed in 1863”

            Nice to know.

            Why did those 2 ex-servicemen shoot those cops?

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “You think planters’ sons were going to sweat in a foundry, maintain the machinery of mills, pour/blow/cast glass etc. or that poor whites were going to be hired for these when so much was already invested in slaves”

            The South was agricultural, not industrial so your argument makes no sense. The South couldn’t build anything, one of the big reasons why they lost the Civil War

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          This country began subsidizing business during the Washington administration.

          Article 1 Section 8 includes road building as an enumerated power.

          You’re entitled to have personal opinions about what you would personally like the government to do or not do.

          But don’t pretend that you speak from some kind of position of authority about the acceptable role of government when this country has been contradicting you from the very beginning.

      • 0 avatar

        I don’t know much about those other things, but in the early part of the 20th century, the automotive and aviation industries (which overlapped at Ford) had to actively lobby for the construction of roads and airports. There were things like the Lincoln Highway Association. Most of those efforts seemed to have been focused at the local and county levels and governments had to be convinced.

        Many of the things you mention, particularly roads and canals, are only possible by government because they require the power of eminent domain.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          ““Slavery was outlawed in 1863”

          Nice to know. Why did those 2 ex-servicemen shoot those cops?”

          Cause of slavery 150+ years ago, that makes sense……

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Cause of slavery 150+ years ago, that makes sense……”

            and the fact that racism has never been adequately resolved in the interim.

            We hate on each other over a difference of opinion on politics. Racism runs much deeper in some.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @stingray65: The first gas station opened just over 100 years ago without any government subsidies…

      The subsidies started in 1916, 100 years ago.

      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-energy-timeline

      http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Mother Jones is such a balanced source for news. As usual the leftists think that when a government lets companies keep their own money it is a subsidy. Green energy gets checks from the government – that is a subsidy. Oil and gas get to deduct the expenses incurred from oil exploration and depletion from their taxable income, just like every other business – so it is not technically a subsidy. Roads and streets are typically financed by motor fuel taxes – so technically it is not a subsidy since the group that benefits also pays for it. Mass transit gets money from fuel taxes – so that is a subsidy because bus riders are not paying the full price for their rides. Oil companies pay huge taxes to local, state, and the federal government. The solar and wind power industries have never paid a penny in taxes – check it out.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          @stingray As usual the leftists think that when a government lets companies keep their own money it is a subsidy.

          Okay, so what’s wrong with the government letting me keep more of my own money because I’ve bought an EV. What’s wrong with the government letting me keep more of my own money when I install an EVSE or solar panels?

          You know what’s even better? Because I actually own a small oil and natural gas company, I get to keep more of my own money because of those sweet oil tax benefits and I’ve doubled down with solar and EV benefits. Winning!

          So, apparently in the right-wing view of the world, there is no such thing as an EV subsidy, just opportunities for people to keep more of their own money as a reward for buying one or installing an EVSE.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Whenever I read “the leftists think” or “the right thinks” it’s a sign I should automatically skip that post.

            If posters want to add their political views, fine, but be willing to hear out the other side, and put forward actual plans to address the issue at hand. Not just hate.

            We can look for ways to blame each other for what we dislike, or we can listen to each other and look for common ground to collaborate.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @VoGo – agreed. The USA political scene is a mess because of hate, fear and the inability to accept some of the responsibility for the mess.

            Left versus right, totalitarian versus libertarian, conservative versus liberal needs to be pushed aside.

            Look at policies based on merit and outcomes.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            MCS – The problem with renewable energy is that the subsidies come from the taxes paid by others including the oil industry. I have no problem with lower taxes that allow productive citizens and business to keep more of what they earn, but taking tax revenues and giving it to someone else so they can buy an electric car or put a solar panel on their roof is not ‘letting you keep your own money’. Leftists claim to care about income inequality, but nearly 100% of green subsidies go to the top 10% wealthiest households, so such policies only increase income inequality.

          • 0 avatar
            GeneralMalaise

            What? That’s their money, you didn’t work hard, earn and save that money. You didn’t build that business!

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    lose a billion here, lose a billion there…pretty soon we will be talking bout real money.

    its just money, folks. and the spending of it is what government does.

    these wasteful spendings along with the built in waste and ineptitude of the government is what is powering the revolution taking place behind the Trump popularity. Like him or hate him, this powerless feeling and loss of voice and control is making folks make some emotional choices.

    i say…force the government to stop waste. make a law stating any government new program can ONLY be funded from a savings of stopped waste in another program.
    the incentive to fund another program is to get the funding from another found and stopped waste.

    here…start off with this 1 BILLION waste savings found yesterday alone:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/22/steal-big-billion-dollar-medicare-fraud-busted/

  • avatar
    Lynn Ellsworth

    Where is Fiat-Chrysler? Aren’t they are on the verge of failing again? Why didn’t they keep the Plymouth name and make it all electric? A full line of all electric cars, vans, toy trucks (pick ups), and transits. Fiat-Chrysler could have a 5 year head start by now.

    Jeep could have been sold to some other unlucky buyer to finance the change over.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • tomLU86: I think you mean the 2007 Malibu (not the 1997). It was an excellent car, I agree. Better than the CamCords?...
  • Jeff S: Tried to view this truck but the posting has been deleted which most likely means it sold.
  • Jeff S: @Nate–Without rust, low mileage, and good interior you would easily get 5k to 6k where I live and it...
  • Lie2me: ” no one more than 10 miles from a Mazda dealership seems to buy” Lol, you can always tell when...
  • DenverMike: Mini-Trucks are just so common in So Calif, that unless it’s Mint, very low miles, and or fully...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber