Agent009
Agent009
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
View My AgentSpace

Print this Page | Digg It | del.icio.us

How Realistic Is Obama's Call For 1 Million Plug In Hybids And Electric Cars By 2015?

Kicking off what campaign advisors have dubbed "energy week," Barack Obama today called for an "end to the age of oil in our time." He backed up his trademark optimism with the most dramatic auto technology proposals of the 2008 campaign cycle. Obama said he hopes to see 1 million plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road by 2015, a number far beyond the most optimistic forecasts. Obama's vision amounts to more than wide-eyed optimism—or generalized political pandering. Details from an eight-page energy fact-sheet the campaign circulated to the media:

  • $4 billion in tax credits to American automakers to retool plants for the production of plug-in hybrid cars capable of 150 miles to the gallon.
  • A $7,000 tax credit for consumers who buy early model plug-in vehicles.
  • Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012.
Editors Note: AutoSpies does not endorse any Presidential Candidate for election.  We simply want your opinion.


 Read Article
How Realistic Is Obama's Call For 1 Million Plug In Hybids And Electric Cars By 2015?



Comments:

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters):
[img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent004.myautospies.com/users/150/Sample-Gallery/sample1.JPG[/img]
cdokecdoke - 8/5/2008 12:32:53 PMView My AgentSpace
+8 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
"Obama said he hopes to see 1 million plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles on the road by 2015, a number far beyond the most optimistic forecasts."

Realistic? That seems to answer the question to me.

reply to this comment
EnnNorakEnnNorak - 8/5/2008 9:26:20 PM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
He said he "hopes to see" not that he'll make it happen. From the many posts in favor of hybrids and electrics that I've seen on this site, ya'll hope the same thing, so please don't come down on this great man with a stupid argument. One can hope without it necessarily actually happening. I personally favor small torquey diesels. I hate hybrids. Plug-in electrics are OK for strictly urban commuting provided cheap electricity is made available for recharging during off-peak hours. Hybrids cannot sustain brisk acceleration for too long without switching over to pure engine power.

Anyway, not to worry too much as production of biofuels from non-food plant material is just around the corner and some of these microbial processes actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere.


WorldofLuxuryWorldofLuxury - 8/6/2008 3:11:17 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I think the only way "things" are gonna work is if we can try to get everyone to understand the importance of our auto economy...a number of people probably take it for grant that cars exist, even if they are suffering from debts.

Cars have had a tremendous effect on our world, and if only every single person (at least every US resident) could get that message...I don't think all this post would get us anywhere...


ILikeLamboILikeLambo - 8/6/2008 3:58:10 AM
-4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I don't care who wins because anyone has got to be better than bush


kthorkthor - 8/6/2008 2:30:08 PM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Really? Would Stalin be better? Would Hitler be better? Would Pol Pot be better? I agree that Bush is at the low end of the spectrum but things could absolutely be worse. Castro was brought into power on the promise of "change" and change they got. Be careful what ambiguous promise you vote for.


kthorkthor - 8/6/2008 3:54:30 PM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Since when did it become a good idea to let the government redistribute wealth to force a "solution" on us? Building nuclear power plants takes some government intervention, but beyond that we do not need a politician telling us what to drive or how to get around. McCain wants to build power plants. Creating energy and letting free enterprise figure out how to use it is obviously the solution. Obama wants to force our automakers to build cars he wants and spend our tax money subsidizing (forcing) us to buy them. WTF?! Wasn't the cold war about defeating communism? Now we are on the verge of choosing it. We are a free and strong people who solve our own problems.


Porschefan2Porschefan2 - 8/5/2008 12:34:25 PM
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
This guy is full of $hit. All talk... How you gonna do that? You think the Europeans have not thought of something like that yet? They've been paying $8+ for fuel for ages. Its all about fooling the people to vote and then what?

reply to this comment
0to600to60 - 8/5/2008 1:37:10 PM
-12 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
reminds me of Bush with all the talk of Gay marriage and Abortion.


WorldofLuxuryWorldofLuxury - 8/5/2008 5:22:15 PM
-1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
lol...actually, if you guys don't remember, Clinton himself was a persuasive talker as well; sadly, the same thing can't be said about his wife. Still, it's hard to trust another persuasive talker, and I don't know much about McCain.

This year's electiion was supposed to be easy for me...but it's not :(
But no problem! Once one of them signs a contract to support our domestic auto giants, COUNT ME IN! x]


EL34EL34 - 8/5/2008 12:45:43 PM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
McCain-Feingold - Campaign Finance Reform
McCain-Kennedy - Immigration Reform
McCain-Kerry - Vietnam Vets Commission
McCain - Bipartison Gang of 14.

just to name a few.

What has Obama done besides empty rhetoric? Where are his evidence of bipartisanship, "change" politics?

reply to this comment
MBCLS07MBCLS07 - 8/6/2008 2:38:06 AM
+6 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Since none of the Obama's supporters have answered your question (cowardly choosing instead to anonymously deboost you instead), I will answer your question. What has Obama accomplished? NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.


TargaTarga - 8/6/2008 9:40:25 AM
-2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Really, what has McCain accomplished in 26 years? For awhile I supported him. In 2000 I voted for him in the primaries. He was someone to trust back then. Now he has changed all his stances and fallen in line with the "party line" and Bush. I am not saying Obama is the second coming or anything, but we can't have Bush V 2.0. We McCain taking the same stances he was in 2000 now, I don't think the election would be close, but now.....

It will be an interesting Nov.


w209w114w209w114 - 8/6/2008 1:42:13 PMView My AgentSpace
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
"we can't have Bush V 2.0"

Looks like the Obama propaganda does infact work on some people.

FYI: McCain is miles more liberal than Bush. Infact hes one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate.


TargaTarga - 8/6/2008 3:20:36 PM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Really? Well, maybe you know things I have not seen or read. How is he so different? What is he going to do to improve things that Bush has done?

Here is your chance to convince someone, cause I am on the fence.


asiddiqiasiddiqi - 8/7/2008 5:47:59 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Cut and pasted from Wikipedia. Being a POW doesnt entitle you to be president...It can entitle you to be a little loopy...deboost away.

Sid
07 335 Sedan
Sport/Prem

Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform.

In 2005, he cosponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Republican John McCain of Arizona.[57] He later added three amendments to the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act", which passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the House of Representatives.[58]
In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border.[59] President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."[60]



Partneredwith Republican Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar–Obama" expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[62] The "Coburn–Obama Transparency Act" authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine launched in December 2007 and run by the Office of Management and Budget.[63] After Illinois residents complained of waste water contamination by a neighboring nuclear plant, Obama sponsored legislation requiring plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks.[64] A compromise version of the bill was subsequently blocked by partisan disputes and later reintroduced.[65] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[66]

In January 2007, Obama worked with Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act," which was signed into law in September 2007.[67] He introduced S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.[68] Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with McCain of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.[69] Obama also introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007," a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 200


EL34EL34 - 8/5/2008 12:46:13 PM
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
When Obama went to Afghanistan and Iraq he was supposed to find out how the war on terror is going.

He found out nothing or at least he won't tell us.

When Obama went to Germany he could have met with the injured US troops.

Obama was told not to bring cameras and to go alone.

Obama acted like a Pentagon puppet and played basketball instead.

Obama = Howdy Doody

reply to this comment
EnnNorakEnnNorak - 8/5/2008 9:38:39 PM
-1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
What you guys need is a Canadian style health care plan but without the long waiting periods for surgery in some areas. Any country wealthy enough to bail out banks is wealthy enough to pay for such a system. There are all sorts of horror stories about HMOs happy to collect premiums but making it difficult for the insured to collect proper medical services, often denying treatment with the excuse that it's still considered "experimental".

The best medicare plan the U.S. had was a few decades ago when catastrophic medical protection was part of Medicare. My father, who died in Mamaroneck NY., ran up a hospital bill in the amount of $89,000 and Uncle Sam picked up every penny of it except the $560 deductible in effect at the time. Now that is what I call a true social safety net. There is very little for a nation to gain in bankrupting the middle classes when they get sick.


EL34EL34 - 8/5/2008 12:46:58 PM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
McCain's 26 years in the Senate, his bipartisan efforts are clear for all to see.

Obama, on the other hand, has

- Sealed his papers on Nuclear Energy
- Sealed his college papers on race relations
- Ran a campaign shrouded with secrecy that would have made Bush proud
- Whitewashed his past, his relationship with convicted felon Tony Rezko, who donated 250,000 to his campaign

who is the svengali, that is clear for all to see.

reply to this comment
LexSucksLexSucks - 8/5/2008 4:28:12 PM
-7 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Even after reading your posts I'm still voting for Obama.


EL34EL34 - 8/5/2008 6:43:16 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I know you need your Soviet healthcare plan.

Good luck if you get sick.


fuelfoolfuelfool - 8/6/2008 1:22:24 AM
+11 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
"Even after reading your posts I'm still voting for Obama."–Lexsucks

And that's why obama will probably win this election. Facts, logic, rational thought are meaningless to the avg. Obama voter who relies solely on emotion and naive, utopian dreams to make decisions. Fortunately, most responsible people grow out of this childlike stage of their lives once they have a family and a career.


MBCLS07MBCLS07 - 8/6/2008 2:43:14 AM
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Lexsucks is like a stubborn little child.

Don't let facts get in your way, Lexsucks. You stay strong you dopey little Obama disciple. You vote for that trendy Barack Obama no matter what rational, logical people have to say.


TargaTarga - 8/6/2008 9:45:41 AM
+5 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I am not sure McCain is the "logical choice" as you imply.

Someone mentioned Obama is running a campaign in secrecy, but so is McCain and he was a big one for "public financing"

McCain has changed his position on many topics, but fires scathing remarks when Obama changes his mind on anything.

McCain complained about Obama going to Europe and meeting with leaders like he was the president, but McCain was over there just a few months ago meeting with leaders.

Again, I am not sold on either, they both have done things that make me go "WTF"???? but it is going to come down to these two, so I will watch the debates, read as much as I can and vote with what I agree with the most.

The problem is we are electing politicians.... and by nature they are the people we should never elect.


LexSucksLexSucks - 8/6/2008 10:16:46 AM
-4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
fuelfool,

“And that's why obama will probably win this election. Facts, logic, rational thought are meaningless to the avg. Obama voter who relies solely on emotion and naive, utopian dreams to make decisions. Fortunately, most responsible people grow out of this childlike stage of their lives once they have a family and a career.”

- You’ve gathered all of that about me from one sentence. I looked at the candidates and the candidate that better fits my needs is Obama. When I grow out of my "childlike stage" I’ll be sure to vote for whichever candidate that you approve of. Get a clue. That’s why we have choices.

MBCLS07,

Just because I support Obama that makes me a stubborn little child? That statement doesn’t even warrant a reply. LOL!!!

You guys are amazing. McCain = Smart Voter, Obama = Naive, stubborn, Childlike voter. If you guys really think that way then you are a bunch of serious retards. LOL!!


cantaffordonecantaffordone - 8/6/2008 2:15:30 PM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Wow! LexSucks says "Even after reading your posts I'm still voting for Obama."

So help me understand... without talking about what Obaba says he wants to do, please list what he has done. Someone running for President should have a grand list of accomplishments to prove that he is actually capable of fulfilling his agenda.

I interview people all the time and I try to get past the BS and drill into who they are and what they can do - not what they want to do or worse, think they can do.

Could someone, LEXSUCKS, or some other koolaid drinker please help make the Obama list of accomplishments?



LexSucksLexSucks - 8/7/2008 12:39:16 PM
-2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I shouldn't have to explain why I'm voting for Obama or even list any the reasons. Who are you that I have to justify my voting decision? I don't have to do anything but vote. And that vote is going to Obama and there isn't a thing that you can say or do that will convince me otherwise.


LexSucksLexSucks - 8/7/2008 12:44:43 PM
-1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Oh yeah, Obama supporters are "koolaid" drinkers? That statement alone puts you into the irrational category.


mpwrmpwr - 8/5/2008 12:54:32 PM
+13 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
At least if we are talking about it we should get somewhere. Lets stop funding the middle east's agenda with our oil habit. It was only a few years ago that everyone and there dog thought they should own a Hummer 2, and look where that got us.

reply to this comment
AdmiralT20AdmiralT20 - 8/5/2008 1:07:35 PM
+8 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
As realistic as when JFK said we are going to put a man on the moon.
We did, so let us stop this crazy talk and get on with the task of addressing our energy issue.

reply to this comment
charlik05charlik05 - 8/5/2008 1:50:19 PM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
yep, lets increase the production of plug in cars which in turn increases our monthly energy costs since we use our household electricity and we are back to square !.

lets pick our poison. fast cars that eat gas and are fun to drive or slow plug in cars that increase our expenses at home by about the same amount as the price of gas.

where do you think this tax credit will come from? our pockets. Where will the 7 billion come from? our pockets!

it really doesn't matter because most presidential candidates never do what they said they will during the election because most people never remember and no one reminds them.

to decrease the price of gas someone has to deal with the oil companies. all that oil rich land in the middle east is leased by mobil, shell, bp, etc... so the oil leaves the field and goes to the companies where they process and resell based on the supply and demand of the given day. what if they took less profit? what if they undercut the market for some time being? the land is leased for the next 300 years or when the oil ends.

the problem is not the president or the oil country, but the company in the middle which is turning record profits, I wonder why?

send all those plug in cars to china where they use more oil than any other nation. as for America lets continue driving what we want because that is freedom and the pursuit of happiness.


NARunnerNARunner - 8/5/2008 3:23:59 PMView My AgentSpace
+6 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I'm not quite understanding how cutting the profits of refiners will help the situation. Exxon Mobile's Q2 earnings were $11.6 billion on $138 billion in revenue. Yeah, it's a lot monetarily, but that's only an 8.4% net margin...nothing to launch fireworks over. What do you want them to do? Sell less? The price will go up. Undercut the market? Good, then people start buying Hummers again and once they can't sustain the market cut, the price returns to normal, and will actual probably be inflated, and we are back to square 1...or square -1 as they case would be.

Leave the companies alone, it's very hard to artificially mess with economics. The change has to come from the consumers. We ultimately have the power to control oil prices, most people just don't realize that.

The ebb and flow of the economy and consumer habits got us into this mess and only time and consumer response will get us out. Hey, the fed left overnight rates at 2% today and the Dow is up almost 300 points, but guess what? The economy is still in the sh*tter! All this political banter, unrealistic goals, and government intervention are nothing more than false positives piled on top of false positives. It will get worse before it gets better. Just wait until people start defaulting on prime mortgages, jumbo mortgages, and consumer credit card debt...


GodfatherSHMGodfatherSHM - 8/5/2008 1:17:14 PM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
"hopes to see" that is about as generic as you can get. I would hope to see also, doesn't mean I am going to do anything about it. People need to not fall for empty statements like that.

reply to this comment
IVANURI97IVANURI97 - 8/5/2008 1:23:07 PM
+5 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
He certainly has a lot of "hopes" without a lot of real plans. How can automakers spend the money on R&D when they are in the tanks due to a lackluster economy. What are the incentives to automakers? What are the incentives to the buyers? Just a lot of hot air coming from that side of the aisle. My "hope" is we don't elect someone like Obama who is too caught up with his own fame.

reply to this comment
0to600to60 - 8/5/2008 1:40:58 PM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Did you read it?
$4 billion in tax credits to American automakers to retool plants for the production of plug-in hybrid cars capable of 150 miles to the gallon.
?A $7,000 tax credit for consumers who buy early model plug-in vehicles. ?
Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012.


IVANURI97IVANURI97 - 8/5/2008 1:48:57 PM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Yes, but those are in his "plan" that is a lot of "hope" and not much more. Those won't ever come to reality. It's a case of promises and hopes that never come true once in office.


Bighead255Bighead255 - 8/5/2008 1:56:23 PM
-1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
nah this one can though the free mkt wants it. I live in NYC and there a lot of people with spare change here and I can see the drop in SUV's on the road especially new ones even in affluent neighborhoods instead of a Escalade people are just getting Mercedes and BMW cars the Lexus LS hybrid is also kind of popular too. Even is people can afford it they just dont want to pay $100 for gas just off principle.


NARunnerNARunner - 8/5/2008 3:31:58 PMView My AgentSpace
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
bighead, you're talking about a niche market. You think a few rich businessmen in NYC (or NYC in general) are a microcosm of the entire motoring public? If you do, you are mighty jaded. Maybe if they actually looked at the window sticker they would see that their S550 gets about the same gas mileage as their Escalade.

When you start telling me that those bankers are hopping into hybrid civics, then I'll believe there is a change happening.


EL34EL34 - 8/5/2008 1:35:00 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Obama should have told the Germans if he was President of Germany there would be no cars more powerful than a VW Rabbit and the speed limit would be 55mph.

reply to this comment
EnnNorakEnnNorak - 8/5/2008 9:43:42 PM
+4 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
No EL34, it is wonderful that those of us who love cars can still drive German machines. High-speed autobahns are a wonderful thing as they save a lot of time getting from A to B and time is the most valuable asset one can have. There is no greater thief than one who steals your time.


0to600to60 - 8/5/2008 1:45:37 PM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
It think its great to have a plan. At least we can hope that this is true and that we can achieve independence from foreign oil over the next few years. I think the recent economic downturn has forced automakers to focus their attention on fuel efficiency, more so then ever before. We can all rant on about how impossible this is but what if it actually happens. I would def support it. Even if we fail, I bet we will have more efficient vehicle and we would be a lot further along in acheiving this then if we sit back and do little to nothing. This should have been the focus years ago.

reply to this comment
finishlinefinishline - 8/5/2008 2:40:11 PM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Amen, amen, amen. When did we become a country of "we can't?" Why not try? Even if we fail, we'll be freer of foreign oil for the effort and whatever level of success we achieve. As for increasing our electric bills as a cost of saving at the gas pump...good! We need to be investing in modern nuclear and solar energy. Nuclear energy alone could handle all of our electricity needs within a short period of time if we'd just make the investment NOW.

For those of you regurgitating the line that Obama doesn't have a plan, you couldn't be more wrong, and if you would take a moment to look around, you'd easily find it. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing, but saying he doesn't have a plan is propagating a lie.


NARunnerNARunner - 8/5/2008 3:34:30 PMView My AgentSpace
+5 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I call it the swiss cheese plan...looks good, but has a lot of holes.


0to600to60 - 8/5/2008 3:55:24 PM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I can agree with both of you. Guess thats politics for you. I think our two current presidential options suck!


CommonSense01CommonSense01 - 8/5/2008 4:38:32 PM
+7 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Finishline

"obama does have a plan, if you would take a moment to look around" are you being sarcastic, because that sounds pretty funny. Obama stated that Mcain is in the pockets of big oil, meanwhile in 2005, Mcain voted against a bill to give tax breaks to large oil companies, while obama voted for it. A bit hypocrytical.


finishlinefinishline - 8/5/2008 5:50:36 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Commonsense01, how does your comment have anything to do with Obama having a plan? I'm not blind or biased. BOTH candidates have benefited largely from contributions from oil companies. McCain has benefited MORE, but they both have benefited. But how does that in ANY WAY say anything about Obama having a plan?


EnnNorakEnnNorak - 8/5/2008 9:50:07 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I'm with you finishline - all we have to do is to substitute the alternative energies you mention for about 10% of our energy demand that is currently satisfied by oil and you will see a 20 to 30% drop in the price of oil due to the supply and demand equation for oil. If you do some math, you will see that the consumer still gains even if these alternative energies cost more initially.


fuelfoolfuelfool - 8/6/2008 2:20:52 AM
+6 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Obama's "plan" fails to address the mid-term. The transition to some as-yet-to-be-discovered new energy source isn't going to happen overnight. In the meantime, we need to drill domestically, increase the number of nuclear power facilities and further develop solar and wind technology—which is precisely what McCain's plan calls for. Obama's plan provides no solutions to address the energy crises until new alternative sources of energy are invented, which could be decades away. Unless of course, you count inflating tires as a solution. I don't, and neither should any rational thinking person. Obama's plan is a recipe for economic disaster. Sadly, I'm not convinced Obama truly cares if the U.S. remains the most prosperous nation in the world.


CommonSense01CommonSense01 - 8/6/2008 2:01:46 PM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Finishline and ennNorak

i was about to write a responce but the post above mine, by fuelfool, covered it perfectly. Im all for alternative energies and i love the plan Obama has about creating a whole new "green collar" economy but you cannot just snap your fingers and make it happen. There has to be a transition period for all development, testing and emplying this eco-freindly infrastructure. The fact that we havent build nuclear plants in more than decades is insane,its one of the cleanest and highest yielding energy sources available to us. How can you be against that?


Maverick2020Maverick2020 - 8/5/2008 1:47:51 PM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Bold ambitious goals are great. Whoever is elected president is going to have to make some.

1 million plug-in hybrids on the road within 7 years is certainly possible. Especially if you consider that Toyota will probably have a model by 2010 (or 2011), Chevy will have the Volt and others will surely follow.

So as the market ramps up and demand builds, you could easily sell 250,000 units a year, over 4 years, reaching the 1 million UIO goal.

reply to this comment
Bighead255Bighead255 - 8/5/2008 1:53:12 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
160k cars a year thats it people Toyota introduced the Prius in 2000 they already sold a million. With tax credits and the fact that the technology isnt exactly new you mean to tell me that the aMERICAN CAR COMPANIES CANT DO IT. What are we inferior or lazy which one. But instead of trying a new technology and maybe taking the pain for a little bit as car makers try to make hybrids faaster most of you seem to rather McCain go to war and support dictators like the Saudi's so we can have more oil so we can all drive our pick-ups and SUV's. I mean seriously how many times have you seem some moron driving in a car that seats 7 by himself, and he has no wife or kids. Also for all you Mccain supporters this is the guy who made Phil Gramm his lead economic advisor cmon do some research.

reply to this comment
NARunnerNARunner - 8/5/2008 3:58:01 PMView My AgentSpace
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Gramm is a bright guy. Not a great speaker, but a bright guy. If you took your own advice, you would see McCain also enlisted the economic advice of some of the smartest economists and savviest business executives in the country.

BTW, how is he going to fund the $4b tax credit to automakers and $7,000 per early model electric car sold? What does early model mean? The first 100? Is this a baseball game where the first 100 get a free hat? Or is it something more meaningful, like the first 25% of owners. That would be another $1.4b in taxes lost by the government that they'd have to get back. How will they do that? It'll come out of your pocket buddy. So you can pay extra taxes and a premium on new technology and maybe recoup 25% through a $7,000 tax credit! Now THAT'S brilliant economics! Who's his advisor? Oprah?

This is all "fad" politics anyway. What will Obama do when the next American crisis pops up in the future for which he is ill-prepared and underexperienced? After he sh*ts his pants and cries for a little while, I mean...


Bighead255Bighead255 - 8/5/2008 5:41:52 PM
-3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
OK so we have 2 choices spend money on war or new technology which one would you rather. Technology we have a cleaner more peaceful earth. Our energy policy heavily influences our foreign policy which forces us to get in bed with countries we dont really want to, and in case you havent notice we pay for that. check cost of both Iraq wars for a reference incase you forgot. This is the same foreign policy that is the main source of terrorism againist Americans both domestically and when we're abroad. So which one really works out cheaper. Even if we spend $300 billion on new technologies it would still work out cheaper than the Iraq war alone not to mention the never ending "war on terror"


ILikeLamboILikeLambo - 8/6/2008 4:18:47 AM
-2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
there is one reason why I don't like McCain and that is because he is showing that he does not think that all people are equal by not letting homosexuals marry. We are all equal and we should all be able to make our own choices, that includes being able to marry whoever we want whether they be male, female black, white, asian or even green with pink spots for all I care.

So I would prefer Obama even if his goals seem a little farfetched. Chevy will be bringing out the Volt, Toyota and Lexus are both bringing out new prius models and Honda has the Civic Hybrid.

The German cars aren't that bad either because they are making small diesels that are getting more and more efficient


NARunnerNARunner - 8/6/2008 9:42:27 AMView My AgentSpace
+5 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
ILikeLambo,

While I agree with you, your argument is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Bighead,

The obvious answer is spend money on new technology, but we are already spending money on the war. Listen, I've struggled with the idea of the war and I still can't decide if it was a good idea or a bad idea. What I do know is that if we left well enough alone like all you Democrats love to do and, God forbid, something terrible (more terrible than what was already happening) happened to the Iraqi people or to the US as a result of Saddam's regime, you and all your Dem buddies would have been the first ones to jump up and say "we should have nipped this in the bud and stepped in and reformed that country a long time ago". I feel like most of the "good" decisions in this country are made in hindsight. For once, we didn't make a decision in hindsight and now everyone is up in arms over it. Look what happened when we ignored Al Qaeda for years...they finally flew planes into World Trade Center. All of a sudden eveyone said "why didn't we take care of this years ago?".

What I do know is that whoever becomes president and inherits these wars has to know what they are doing from a military standpoint. McCain, as a former navy pilot and POW, knows about war...strategy, execution, and exiting. Obama, whose military experience is limited to 3 or 4 games of Risk and a "saving face" trip to the Middle East, has no idea what he's doing so he says "I'll bring our troops home in 3 months" and everyone goes bananas over it because none of us idiots know what its like to plan and execute a war and neither does he.

And I have news for you, terrorism against the US stems from our wealth and freedom as a nation, not from Bush's foreign policy. Bush merely became a poster boy for terrorist groups to hate on.


Bighead255Bighead255 - 8/6/2008 11:18:09 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
I didnt say Bush's foreign policy I said US. Democrat and Republican, and in honesty neither Obama or McCain will change it because its bigger than both of them, but the need to secure resources for their country is what leads to policies. So they are created for the most part with the best of intentions but I feel as though the more we can rely on ourselves and not need to take from anyone both "friend" or foe the better.


ILikeLamboILikeLambo - 8/7/2008 5:27:08 AM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
The reason I posted that is because if people aren't complaining about not having equal rights we can all unite and face whatever problem comes up next. Obama has the African American vote, the gay and lesbian vote, plus everyone else who likes him.

It is very possible to get that many cars on the road but if people want to support it and do it, that's a completely different bucket of fish.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself very clear in my first post.


SpectatorSpectator - 8/5/2008 2:00:48 PM
-2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Wasn't this the same person who last year said E85 would be the future of automobiles in this country?



reply to this comment
Bighead255Bighead255 - 8/5/2008 2:02:43 PM
-3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
last I checked your boy Bush was the one who pushed it through. there is a lot of blame to go around with that debacle


09CTSVforMe09CTSVforMe - 8/5/2008 4:16:16 PM
+7 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
And your boy Obama (assuming based on your choice of words) voted for it and backed it so who can grow lots & lots of Guvmint subsidized corn? Right, Illinois, his home state.

It's amazing how people only learn of and then speak of the part that they bother to find out about (or hear from their favorite biased "news" source).

I do not claim to know everything by saying that, but I'm telling you Obama people, winning an election based 90% on the campaign slogan "Bush sucked" is pretty weak.

Neither Obama nor McCain should be telling us what we should drive. Let the markets decide (like thay are already starting to do). Trust me, if someone builds a compelling hybrid/electric/flux capacitored car, people would build it and people would buy it.

We don't need no stinkin' government subsidies.
Just look at how poorly they're working with corn farming.


Bighead255Bighead255 - 8/5/2008 6:01:16 PM
0 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
ok that was wrong of him I dont believe in handouts for citzens or bailouts corporations even though I'm a Democrat.


atomicbriatomicbri - 8/6/2008 8:03:41 AMView My AgentSpace
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
They are both politicians, there for, they are both liars. The question is which is the lesser of the two evils? Even though McCain is very experienced, he is hard headed in a lot of issues that are out of pace with the average American. Obama is not as experienced and may not know how to handle situations as they arise. I am now 33 years old and ever since I was 18 both parties were going to do something or another about healthcare here in the US. Let's see... that was 15 years ago, and still it has not been fixed or created or whatever, but every politician claims they will do something about it.

Money to help an industry get more technology is fine to me, whoever it comes from. I say this because about 10 years ago, Toyota received and still does receive money from the Japanese government to help in R&D. In Germany, they also get government money to help in R&D.... hmmm makes one wonder why American companies seem behind. A lot I am sure has to do with the unions sucking them dry. Hard to spend on R&D when an outside group keeps making ridiculous demands and threaten to not work if their high demands are not met.

I think any idea that either one of the guys makes is mainly pie in the sky, pure campaign rhetoric!


answeranswer - 8/5/2008 2:35:09 PMView My AgentSpace
+5 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Agent009Agent009 - 8/5/2008 3:02:30 PMView My AgentSpace
+10 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
compared to who?

reply to this comment
Agent009Agent009 - 8/5/2008 3:53:38 PMView My AgentSpace
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
We could learn a bit from Canada on somethings.

reply to this comment
LexSucksLexSucks - 8/5/2008 4:29:51 PM
-3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
But the US can whip Canada's butt NP.

reply to this comment
CommonSense01CommonSense01 - 8/5/2008 4:34:26 PM
+1 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
cptamazing4

Thanks for spewing your nonsense, please back that up. i really hope your not from canada as the other posters claim. You think canada is better ehh?

reply to this comment
fuelfoolfuelfool - 8/6/2008 2:08:51 AM
+6 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Canada has the luxury to exist as it does only due to the protection they've enjoyed under the umbrella of the United States military. Without U.S. protection they, like western Europe, would've been forced to spend extravagantly on their own defense to ward off an expansionist Soviet Union during the Cold War. Something to remember while you and those in Europe santimoniously scold the U.S. for it's strong devotion to individualism and capitalism. Someone has to act responsibily and make the tough decisions. Canada sure as hell isn't going to do it.

reply to this comment
Agent009Agent009 - 8/5/2008 3:04:51 PMView My AgentSpace
+5 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
That argument can be made of any administration for a variety off expenditures. War is costly however.

reply to this comment
fuelfoolfuelfool - 8/6/2008 2:01:09 AM
+3 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
The war on terror has not really been as expensive as the media would have you think. The Iraq war's costs represented 1 percent of GDP in the peak year of the war. World War II, with a $4.1 trillion price tag in 2008 dollars, was nearly 36 percent of GDP. Sadly, war is a costly, but necessary undertaking. The alternative is to allow mad men like Hitler, Hussein and Bin Laden continue unchecked.

reply to this comment
MBCLS07MBCLS07 - 8/6/2008 3:02:41 AM
+7 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
Imagine what could be done with all the money pissed away on gov't waste, the schooling, jailing, housing, and hospitalizing illegal immigrants, and social programs that reward unproductive Americans for failure and subsidize irresponsible decisions.

reply to this comment
Bighead255Bighead255 - 8/6/2008 11:30:54 AM
+2 BoostDrop the Boost Up the Boost
MBCLS07 as a democrat I know its blasphemy to agree with you but I honestly cant take the bullshit either. i think the only thing people should pay for is education to people who pass a standardized test in HS and maintain a certain GPA while in college. the rest of that welfare shir has to go medicade, welfare, and all those other things that rewards MF's who sit around all day while the govt takes 48% of my income 48%. I work from mid july to dec 31 to pay the fed state and city and the president governor or mayor has never made me eggs coffee or gave me a pep talk after a hard day. WTF is that all about. But now you also have to admit the infamous $500 hammers that repubilcans give to military contractors is BS. watch http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=130 those are the troops talking to directly even they know its BS

reply to this comment
asiddiqiasiddiqi - 8/7/2008 5:56:22 PM
0 Boost