Well that is great, which would just be more proof that even oil companies understand that EV's are going to be a big part of the future.
Observations on this socalled infrastructure bill
- Thread starter Nautiknight
- Start date
Well that is great, which would just be more proof that even oil companies understand that EV's are going to be a big part of the future.
Agreed. Just as Iong as we don't use the power of government to push the issue ahead of when the transition takes place, I'm all for it.
The transition is already taking place. Car manufacturers wouldnt be introducing EV's left and right if there wasnt a market for them.
Yes, largely thanks to Elon Musk. He's basically a modern day version of Rockefeller.
He has certainly played a big part, but there are many more EV's that are going to be hitting the market besides Tesla. Even Ford is making an electric mustang.
Yeah, but Musk showed that EVs can be something people think are cool. If not for him, we'd have the Chevy Volt as the standard, lol.
I love this galaxy brain "We're not a democracy" argument that has picked up quite a bit of steam lately. One Party has realized that they're no longer going to get the majority of votes in the country ever again, so it's become the new motto as states work to suppress the will of voters.
Oooooooh. So Republicans in Congress -- just like their constituents are actually FOR 'true infrastructure.'
But then, we hear out of their mouths -- and parroted by you -- that 90% of it has zero to do with infrastructure. Thus, of course, they reject the whole thing out of hand.
I believe that a case could be made that long-term care services under Medicaid doesn't fit the definition. And maybe money for new federal buildings, new schools, and affordable housing would be a stretch too. But 90% of the money isn't for true infrastructure? Really?
It seems to me that this would be the perfect time for Republicans to present their own "more focused" infrastructure plan and how they would pay for it so that the public could get a clear picture of the possibilities -- and how they're paid for. An all-out rejection by the minority party simply means the Democrats go it alone. Is that really the best way for present a more conservative option to the American People?
Are you pointing out that the USG offered incentives to purchase EVs for years and failed to substantially drive the market and then Elon Musk came out with something people actually wanted and demand is driving the soon-to-be vehicle revolution? That is freaking Blasphemy against our great and powerful Gov. Prepare to be cancelled.
Tesla received all kinds of money from government subsidies. And there are still tax credits for buying ev-s (at least in 2020, I assume they still exist, but I could be wrong)
Last edited:
They aren't always disproportionately affecting minorities but the USG doesn't fund studies to see when the majority is affected. The intents of assistance programs are also to disproportionately target minorities but no one complains about that because we see it as a positive. Huge amounts of money has gone into the War on Poverty for more than 100 years and largely has been to help minority groups out of poverty. It hasn't worked, so invariably you're going to target those groups when the poor are affected most by Government decisions. This doesn't make those decisions racist.
Are you looking for some arbitrary law that says that Government can't do anything unless it impacts all groups of people (classified however someone wants to classify them) absolutely equally? I guess I'd be for that because Government would absolutely stop.
1. Tax credits and incentives are not subsidies.
2. Regulatory credits from the other automobile manufacturers are not subsidies either as any one of those carmakers could reorganize whenever they want to meet the green laws.
Regardless, all of the same federal incentives and mandates applied to all of them and it wasn't until someone made a marketable EV that demand rose and the industry turned. The early model of forcing carmakers to build a certain number of vehicles coupled with consumer tax breaks didn't work and there would be no momentum if that's where we still were with no Tesla.
Of course people are going to buy more of a better product, and Tesla certainly has a better product than its previous competitors. That doesnt take away from the fact that they also received money from the government and were part of the EV push from the government.
We dont know where momentum would be without Tesla. They were the first, but that doesnt mean other manufacturers wouldnt have kept developing their EV's.
Sure we do. No other manufacturers were creating desirable EVs even as recently as a year ago, even with the pressure that Tesla has put on the market. It's not a stretch to say that without his approach to this, we would still be thinking about EVs in the vein of the Chevy Volt.
This is such a strange argument. All the major car companies now either have, or will be releasing in the near future, EV's that look to be quality cars. The first Hybrid that sold well was the Prius, which was nothing special, but now there are certainly far better Hybrids as well. I dont really understand why you think without Tesla all of the other major car companies would have just stopped developing EV's. THe BMW i3 has been on the market since 2013, so it isnt as if other companies havent been working on EV's for years.
Strange? Musk made EVs sexy. Major car manufacturers weren't really trying to do that until now because they learned from his approach. Yes, they probably would have gotten there eventually but he really pushed the curve. That's pretty hard to deny.
I do not trust Government to make smart choices on this or any spending bill. That being said there are things that only they can get done. Joe's handlers will find everyone that pumps money into the pockets of big dem donors so they can get their cut in kick backs. As for Electric cars, they are anything but clean. U have to charge them, often with coal run power plants, and charge a battery that is horrid environmentally. I can't wait to see us borrow money we can't afford to give it to the next generation of Solyndra.
I am not arguing about Musk or Tesla (other than the idea that the government didnt benefit him). I am disagreeing with this idea that Tesla is the end all be all of electric vehicles when all the major car companies have been working on them for years. He was the first for sure, so credit to him, but the upcoming EV industry would still exist without Tesla.
It wouldn’t be nearly as far along. EVs have always been (and remain) a side project to traditional auto makers. Their focus is on manufacturing and delivering their current vehicles, not on disrupting their own industry.
I think EV's are similar to Hybrids when they first came out. You had the Prius, a basic looking car, and for EV's you had the Nissan Leaf, a basic looking car. The people that bought them were mainly super environmentally conscious people. But, now we have all kinds of hybrids that look much better, and are much better cars than the Prius. I think that would have happened with EV's as well, with or without Tesla, though I wouldnt necessarily disagree that Tesla has pushed it forward. The difference in Hybrids and EV's though, gets us to back to infrastructure. Not everyone can have an EV right now, because not everyone has access to plug one in, where as hybrids still run on gas so that isnt an issue. If/when we have charging stations, then EV's become much more accessible and there will be many more models, just as with hybrids.
Everything you've said here is totally reasonable. The problem is that policy is ultimately a matter of preference. Elon Musk's endeavors are aided by decades of taxpayer funded activities. As you point out, much of the technology leveraged by the private sector for profit has origins in completely unrelated, tax funded technology efforts. The roads Amazon uses to ship good were paid for by taxpayers.
The purpose of government funded infrastructure like this is to grease demand, to jumpstart something. So again, it's fine to debate the value of this specific effort. Perhaps it's a total waste of money (I really have no opinion on this). On the other hand, perhaps it jumpstarts an EV revolution and we look back in 30 years and talk about how beneficial the policy was. To your earlier point, we don't know what the future holds. We don't know if this is a good investment or not. I mean, we spend like $700b per year on defense. We need to take our national infrastructure as seriously as we take our national defense.
We do, but you're only looking at the federal budget. Unlike defense, infrastructure is developed and paid-for at every level. You'd have to add all of those up to get the true number.
It is alarming how much we expect the federal government to do in a country that was explicitly founded to prevent a strong central government.
There is nothing stopping state or local governments from handling at least some of this, but most simply wont do it, and certainly wont raise taxes to do it. My state legislature in the last few weeks has spent their time doing things like honoring Tomi Lahren and Candace Owens, proposing the Bible as the state book, getting rid of gun permits, and proposing the ladder as the state tool. They arent remotely interested in doing anything productive, and my guess is my state legislature isnt the only one like that.
Why should they when their electorate is clamoring for the federal government to do it for them? They're just responding to your desires.
Also, glad I live in Florida.
Most wealthy country in the world with a shitty infrastructure, and moron Republicans still think we shouldn't spend on it, and we should give more tax breaks to billionaires.
Morons.
Morons.
I live in one of the most deep red states in the country, so if these are the desires of the electorate, then that should tell you something about Republicans.
IIRC, you live in either Iowa or Indiana. The ASCE and White House both released infrastructure report cards. The national average score was C-. States getting a C- were California, New York, and Indiana. Iowa ranked with Florida and Texas with a C. So you can feel better that your state isn't that far afield of all of the other states.
Of course, the WH is selling it's "American Jobs Plan" so they're not going to give out A's to justify why spending $2 Trillion dollars is absolutely necessary right now. But relatively, your state isn't any worse off that a lot of Democrat-led states and some of those have a good deal more revenue to spend.
Are there States that deserve A grades? If we move forward with an infrastructure improvement plan, won't that create a whole bunch of new jobs?
Well, hell, at least I was close with Indiana. That must've been fried-chicken.
The ASCE gave Tennessee a C- as well. The WH didn't list the grade on their fact sheet.
A lot of what is in this was green new deal garbage, that they want but can not get. At the end of the day Republicans have to vote down the whole bill, They will have no luck at getting rid of even 1/3 of what they feel is garbage.
Republicans could put forth a more focused bill, and it will never see the light of day, and with the current press, most Americans would never know they even put one forward. They have no option other than a 100% rejection. Neither the Dems or Republicans want to find any common ground. and to be honest The Dems will get most of what they want, so why would they seek to water down their objectives.
With that kind of attitude by Congressional Republicans, we can count on getting all the shit you don't want without any scaling down. Is that really what you want?
For the life of me, I don't understand this "new age" of political posturing where it's better to get nadda -- but score points with your diehard base -- than to come to the bargaining table with a conservative counterpoint to the current Biden proposal.
President Biden is giving Republicans all kinds of signals that he's willing to compromise with them. Trust me, he'd LOVE nothing better than to pass a bipartisan infrastructure bill.
If you are a conservative, you WANT your Republican Congress members to fight for your view on every bill. If you believe the problem is the Democrats, you're not paying attention to what's happening in Washington.
Republicans just had 4 years to put together a bill and didn't even sniff the panties of anything resembling a bill.
Trump's only legislative accomplishment was the tax cut and Biden is going to reverse that his first year in office. Lol
Zero other legislative accomplishments, but managed to get impeached twice (should've been 3 with obstruction in the Russia investigation) and have the worst electoral outcome for an incumbent's party since Hoover. Absolute disaster. Hope he's the nominee in 2024 again.
Republicans held the house for 2 years not 4. Spending bills must originate in the house. The Dems gave in exactly never, when it came to working with the Orange man or Republican Senate. Democratic Senators gave in exactly never, And you and Shuckster cheered them on, just like Republican voters are doing now.
Last edited:
Okay, two years not four. Where was the GOP's infrastructure bill that Dems "never gave in to"?
WHAAAAAAA!!! Excuses. Do something for the American people, not just your rich asshole friends.
They passed tax cuts for their rich buddies without any issue. But, doing something for 99% of the population is too hard for them.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
🚨 Conference Realignment Mega Thread: Clemson sues the ACC 🚨- Latest: Knightwalker94
-
-