[QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4389874]"Don't say you don't remember...." :alien: :wiggum: :dunno:
(Not you. It was a chameleon masquerading as an authority figure)
Oh, I'm very tolerant of hearing how I hypocritically lap up Old Scratch's seed after it leaks from my yearning, yawning, gaping, bleeding tuchus onto the divan after assuming a wide stance....the first dozen or so times.
The "new atheists" are encouraged to be militant... :taz:[/QUOTE]
I feel like I could read this 100 times and it still wouldn't make any sense, although it is creepily entertaining.
[QUOTE=CraigFL;4389871]Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors.
For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.
Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the 9 gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
According to General Motors, the Volt battery hold 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.
The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked up what I pay for electricity.
I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh.
16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.
$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.
Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that gets 32 mpg.
$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.10 per mile.
The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000.
So Obama wants us to pay 3 times as much for a car that costs more than 7 times as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country.
Why is the Volt considered to be Obama's car? The first prototype of the Volt appeared in 2007. The Volt and cars like it are part of our automotive future.
[QUOTE=adb280z;4390524]Why is the Volt considered to be Obama's car? The first prototype of the Volt appeared in 2007. The Volt and cars like it are part of our automotive future.[/QUOTE]
Because Obama has pushed through subsidies for the car and to the tune of $250k per car!!!!!
[QUOTE] [B][URL="http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192"]Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $250K Per Vehicle[/URL][/B]
[B]Analyst: 'This might be the most government-supported car since the Trabant'[/B]
By [URL="http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/bio.aspx?ID=597"]Tom Gantert[/URL], published on Dec. 21, 2011
[I][U][/U](Editor’s note: This article has been updated with a reaction from a General Motor's official.)[/I]
[B]Each Chevy Volt sold thus far may have as much as $250,000 in state and federal dollars in incentives behind it [/B]– a total of $3 billion altogether, according to an analysis by James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Hohman looked at total state and federal assistance offered for the development and production of the Chevy Volt, General Motors’ plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. His analysis included 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits.[B] The amount of government assistance does not include the fact that General Motors is currently [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_motors_corporation/index.html"]26 percent owned[/URL] by the federal government.[/B]
The Volt subsidies flow through multiple companies involved in production. The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle.
For example, the Department of Energy awarded a [URL="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/recovery/pdfs/battery_awardee_list.pdf"]$105.9 million[/URL] grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately [URL="http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/archives/fpi/mega/GM-9-23-08-BM.pdf"]$106 million[/URL] for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to [URL="http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/archives/fpi/mega/Compact_Power-4-14-09-BM.pdf"]$100 million[/URL] in refundable battery credits (combination tax breaks and cash subsidies). These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle.
It’s unlikely that all the companies involved in Volt production will ever receive all the $3 billion in incentives, Hohman said, because many of them are linked to meeting various employment and other milestones. But the analysis looks at the total value that has been offered to the Volt in different aspects of production – from the assembly line to the dealerships to the battery manufacturers. Some tax credits and subsidies are offered for periods up to 20 years, though most have a much shorter time frame.
GM has estimated they’ve [URL="http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/01/gm-willing-to-buy-back-volts/"]sold 6,000 Volts[/URL] so far. That would mean each of the 6,000 Volts sold would be subsidized between $50,000 and $250,000, depending on how many government subsidy milestones are realized.
If those manufacturers awarded incentives to produce batteries the Volt may use are included in the analysis, the potential government subsidy per Volt increases to $256,824. For example, A123 Systems has received extensive state and federal support, and bid to be a supplier to the Volt, but the deal instead went to Compact Power. The $256,824 figure includes adding up the subsidies to both companies.
The $3 billion total subsidy figure includes $690.4 million offered by the state of Michigan and $2.3 billion in federal money. [B]That’s enough to purchase 75,222 Volts with [URL="http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Chevrolet_Volt/"]a sticker price of $39,828[/URL].[/B]
Additional state and local support provided to Volt suppliers was not included in the analysis, Hohman said, and could increase the level of government aid. For instance, the Volt is being assembled at the [URL="http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/7791"]Poletown plant[/URL] in Detroit/Hamtramck, which was built on land acquired by General Motors through eminent domain.
“It just goes to show there are certain folks that will spend anything to get their vision of what people should do,” said State Representative Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills. “It’s a glaring example of the failure of central planning trying to force citizens to purchase something they may not want. … They should let the free market make those decisions.”
“This might be the most government-supported car since the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebant"]Trabant[/URL],” said Hohman, referring to the car produced by the former Communist state of East Germany.
According to GM CEO Dan Akerson, the average Volt owner [URL="http://www.newser.com/article/d9rlsen01/general-motors-ceo-akerson-leads-comeback-from-bankruptcy-by-ruffling-companys-bureaucracy.html"]makes $170,000 per year[/URL].
Greg Martin, director of Policy and Washington Communications for GM, wrote in an email, "While much less than the hundreds of billions of dollars that Japanese and Korean auto and battery manufacturers have received over the years, the investments provided by several different Administrations and Congresses to jump-start the country's fledgling battery technology and domestic electric vehicle industries (not just specifically for the Volt as Ford's offering will also use LG Chem batteries and Fisker will use the A123 system for example) matches the same foresight and innovation leadership that other countries are exhibiting and which America has historically taken pride in."
Martin added that the Mackinac Center's math was "simple and selective." However, he offered no data or specifics to support his assertion.
"This is a matter of simple math," said Hohman. "I added the known state and federal incentives that have been offered and divided by the number of Volts sold. If GM has additional information to add to the public data on the use of taxpayer money, I look forward to seeing it."
[QUOTE=Frequent Flyer;4401345]There was a time when high gas prices were a bad thing, and the president was blamed for them. But that was before the media was fundamentally transformed by Hopey Change.[/QUOTE]
So you admit that the high price of gas isn't the president's fault?
[QUOTE=adb280z;4402100]So you admit that the high price of gas isn't the president's fault?[/QUOTE]
Not directly but indirectly. I think his policies over the past 3 years have created this horrible economy. The price of a gallon of gas wouldn't be so painful if the purchasing power of the dollar hasn't been diminished (Obama's fault) and unemployment wasn't so high (Obama's responsibility).
The problem with fuel and energy costs is the demand has decreased while the price has increased--- this flies counter to the simple laws of supply and demand. Only one variable can explain such dysfunction---
A pathological and corrupt federal government, who's catalyst is Barak Inssein Obama.
Here's a great editorial by Krauthammer:
Yes, of course, presidents have no direct control over gas prices. But the American people know something about this president and his disdain for oil. The "fuel of the past," he contemptuously calls it. To the American worker who doesn't commute by government motorcade and is getting fleeced every week at the pump, oil seems very much a fuel of the present — and of the foreseeable future. President Barack Obama incessantly claims energy open-mindedness, insisting that his policy is "all of the above." Except, of course, for drilling:
• off the Mid-Atlantic coast (as Virginia, for example, wants),
• off the Florida Gulf Coast (instead, the Castro brothers will drill near there),
• in the broader Gulf of Mexico (where drilling in 2012 is expected to drop 30 percent below pre-moratorium forecasts),
• in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (more than half the size of England, the drilling footprint being the size of Dulles Airport),
• on federal lands in the Rockies (where leases are down 70 percent since Obama took office).
But the event that drove home the extent of Obama's antipathy to nearby, abundant, available oil was his veto of the Keystone pipeline. It gave the game away because the case for Keystone is so obvious and overwhelming. Vetoing it gratuitously prolongs our dependence on outside powers, kills thousands of shovel-ready jobs, forfeits a major strategic resource to China, damages relations with our closest ally, and sends billions of oil dollars to Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and already obscenely wealthy sheiks.
Obama boasts that on his watch production is up and imports down. True, but truly deceptive. These increases have occurred in spite of his restrictive policies. They are the result of Clinton- and Bush-era permitting. This has been accompanied by a gold rush of natural gas production resulting from new fracking technology that has nothing at all to do with Obama.
"The American people aren't stupid," said Obama (Feb. 23), mocking "Drill, baby, drill." The "only solution," he averred in yet another major energy speech last week, is that "we start using less, that lowers the demand, prices come down." Yet five paragraphs later he claimed that regardless of "how much oil we produce at home … that's not going to set the price of gas worldwide."
So: Decreasing U.S. demand will lower oil prices, but increasing U.S. supply will not? This is ridiculous. Either both do or neither does. Does Obama read his own speeches?
Obama says of drilling: "That's not a plan." Of course it's a plan. We import nearly half of our oil, thereby exporting enormous amounts of U.S. wealth. Almost 60 percent of our trade deficit — $332 billion out of $560 billion — is shipped overseas to buy crude.
Drill here and you stanch the hemorrhage. You keep those dollars within the U.S. economy, repatriating not just wealth but jobs, and denying them to foreign unfriendlies. Drilling is the single most important thing we can do to spur growth at home while strengthening our hand abroad.
Instead, Obama offers what he fancies to be the fuels of the future. You would think that he'd be a tad more modest today about his powers of divination after the Solyndra bankruptcy, the collapse of government-subsidized Ener1 (past makers of the batteries of the future) and GM's suspension of production — for lack of demand — of another federally dictated confection, the flammable Chevy Volt.
Deterred? Hardly. Our undaunted seer of the energy future has come up with his own miracle fuel: algae. Yes, green slime, upon whichSteven Chu'sEnergy Department will be sprinkling yet another $14 million of taxpayer money.
This is the very same Chu who famously said in 2008 that he wanted U.S. gas prices to rise to European levels of $8-$10 a gallon — and who Tuesday, eight months before Election Day, publicly recanted before Congress, Galileo-style.
Whom do they think they're fooling? An oil crisis looms, prices are spiking — and our president is extolling algae. After Solyndra, Keystone and promises of seaweed in their gas tanks, Americans sense a president so ideologically antipathetic to fossil fuels — which we possess in staggering abundance — that he is utterly unserious about the real world of oil in which the rest of us live.
High gasoline prices are a major political problem for Obama. They are not just a pain at the pump, however. They are a constant reminder of three years of a rigid, fatuous, fantasy-driven energy policy that has rendered us scandalously dependent and excessively vulnerable.
[QUOTE=Frequent Flyer;4402173]Not directly but indirectly. I think his policies over the past 3 years have created this horrible economy. The price of a gallon of gas wouldn't be so painful if the purchasing power of the dollar hasn't been diminished (Obama's fault) and unemployment wasn't so high (Obama's responsibility).
He didn't create the horrible economy. The economy was a disaster when he took over and wouldn't have changed much if McCain had won in 2008.
[B][U]Gas Prices Still Going Up, Refineries Shutting Down[/U][/B]
POSTED BY GEORGE PRENTICE ON SUN, MAR 18, 2012 AT 11:12 AM
Energy industry analysts say there's no relief in sight at the nation's gas pumps.
While prices jumped 6 percent in February, market experts said many of the nation's refineries have been idled or shut down permanently because their owners claimed they were losing money on them. According to the Wall Street Journal, Sunoco is expected to close another of its large refineries this July, "taking another 335,000 barrels per day in production capacity off the market."
Nationwide, prices at the pump averaged $3.83 a gallon on Friday, according to the AAA. That's only about 6.7 percent below the record high of $4.11 from July 2008.
In Idaho, the cheapest unleaded gas reported in the last 48 hours was $3.51 a gallon at three stations near Coeur d'Alene. The highest prices were reported at a service station in Salmon with gas at $3.84 a gallon, and in South Boise with a price of $3.81 a gallon.