Trump’s certainly self-absorbed, but he’s not even moderately smart. He’s got some level of animal cunning that comes to bear in a limited set of circumstances, almost entirely all involving self-promotion. I don’t even think he could have pulled it off if he hadn’t already inherited wealth, though. But yeah, I suspect that wealthy folks often share certain characteristics…
1 Like
Elon Musk sounds More like dystopian feudalist.
Well, I agree they’re idiots, and it’s true that the vast majority of people will be far worse off. But rich companies run by rich people will probably get richer, because apparently 30 years of data showing that trickle-down economics doesn’t work doesn’t matter to Trump. And for some people, seeing rich people get richer gives them warm 80s nostalgia.
1 Like
Indeed - he would be foolish not to given how much of his revenues are from government contracts or subsidies.
3 Likes
Oh my god. What would happen to us all if working class and middle class people no longer had to subsidize the purchase of $50-$90 thousand cars for their betters?
The tax credit in question is for all plug-in and hybrid cars, many of which are made for “working class and middle class people”, and was introduced to encourage people to drive more fuel-efficient cars. But we all know how Trump feels about the environment and oil usage.
4 Likes
Dolt-45 just wants to reverse any policy he associates with Obama. That’s how stupid this is.
The credit also isn’t exclusively intended to promote the purchase of Teslas, but also less expensive EVs and hybrids. The idea that only wealthy tree-huggers can afford and want these vehicles is right-wing populist garbage.
3 Likes
That’s true in a sense (that NASA could theoretically do it) but it’s false because the presupposition is wrong. NASA gets whipsawed every time there is a change of administration in DC, and sometimes in between. Reusable ships, no the Moon, no, now it’s Mars, no back to the Moon, Robot probes, no, reusable ships, no Moon, Mars, Probes…
And the reason that is so is because America as a nation of voters does not particularly want or care about manned spaceflight. I doubt if the space geeks who would support fully funding a NASA Mars mission are more than ten percent of the electorate. Do you seriously think a President Warren or Sanders would fully fund that goal?
If we are ever going to get back to the moon, much less Mars, it’s going to require leadership that does not have to run for re-election.
Take a look at this chart and tell me how well you think it is working.
You’re correct that NASA’s goals and leadership have been mangled by multiple administrations, and the message of “space exploration = better science on Earth” isn’t getting communicated very well anymore. Bernie’s gone on record as saying that he’d spend NASA money on healthcare rather than spaceflight (which are two extremely different things, and that doesn’t really make sense, but, well, it’s Bernie). I think a theoretical President Warren would be a bit more science-friendly.
1 Like
I’m not sure why you think a chart exclusive to plug-in car sales has anything to do with sales of hybrid cars in America.
The only time that we have ever had a political consensus for manned spaceflight was during those eight years we were beating the commies to the moon. I wish we would have such a consensus again but realistically we never will. So if it’s not a Musk, or someone like him (Blue Origin etc) we will not see American manned spacecraft again. (I doubt that the Orion will fly more than five times in the next twenty years, if that many).
Because plugins are what Tesla is building, and the original post was about Tesla and Musk.
I’d be fine with a tax credit for plugins and hybrids which sticker at say $30,000 and under.
That chart doesn’t prove the intent of the legislation in re: a particular manufacturer. It proves that Tesla (including the Model 3, the base model of which is being marketed at $35k – fully loaded at $50k) is a popular brand for those interested in EVs and hybrids. No surprise given Musk’s skill at self-promotion and marketing and his effectively being first to market with the luxury models.
See, now that would be the government imposing itself on the market by forcing manufacturers to potentially sell their cars at a loss. I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to it but it wouldn’t happen because it would violate the holy writ of neoliberalism and Libertarianism that dominates U.S. politics.
I had a tax credit on my old Honda Insight, which I think stickered at $20k or somewhat. Got 60-70 mpg. Great little car.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml
2 Likes
Plugin technology is pretty well established now. I don’t think a $30K price point is a problem at all.
If somebody wants a Tesla, or a hybrid Cadillac or BMW, they can afford to buy it without a chunk of my money.
Now you’re talking! I’m for that.
I don’t either, but the kind of regulation you’re suggesting (which effectively mandates price levels) wouldn’t be close to possible under the current economic consensus.
The law that Il Douche is scrapping (with Libertarians and the oil industry cheering him on) applied to these cars as well:
2016 Ford Focus Electric — MSRP $29,170.
2016 Nissan Leaf — MSRP $29,010.
2016 Volkswagen e-Golf — MSRP $28,995.
2016 Chevrolet Spark EV — MSRP $25,120.
2016 Smart Fortwo Electric Drive — MSRP $25,000.
2016 Mitsubishi i-MiEV — MSRP $22,995.
In other words, don’t blame the regulation, blame the manufacturers for not doing a better job at marketing or promoting quality builds for their sub-$30k options to working and middle class people.
1 Like
As a habitual liar and hypocrite he makes the perfect modern Republican. He is the utopian anarchist version of the Repugnant anti-gay legislator who secretly has sex with men.
My caveat is ‘properly funded’ which implies the political will to make it happen. I suppose I should clarify what my mind is actually thinking. So, please take that into consideration.
