Quantcast

Should the Government Cut Funding From Clean Car Programs?

SodaHead Politics 2011/06/06 19:30:59
You!
Add Photos & Videos
In an article lovingly titled "Which Is Worse: Debt or No Planet," Huffington Post writer Joan E. Dowlin is questioning the GOP's proposed budget cuts where they touch on disaster relief and clean car programs, arguing that neither should be considered appropriate for spending cuts.

[W]hy do the Republicans in the House want to ax a clean-car program to pay for the FEMA funds? The under-funded Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program at the Department of Energy was designed to help the nation wean off fossil fuels and also create cleaner air and cut down on CO2 emissions which, according to many scientists, contribute to global warming.

The half-billion dollar clean car cut was proposed by Rep. Robert Aderholt, after Majority Leader Eric Cantor suggested that tornado relief for Joplin, Mo., should only be afforded if spending was cut elsewhere.

The Daily Kos also reports that the same committee recently cut just over $1 billion out of Homeland Security's disaster relief fund.

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-e-dowlin/house-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Telly Samba 2011/06/07 13:25:23 (edited)
    No
    Telly Samba
    +26
    This question is worded rather deceptively. These are LOANS that we are talking about, not grants or subsidies. If the folks who would like to see this loan program cut actually learned (if at all possible) what the program is for and how it is administrated then maybe they would have an argument. Take a few minutes to learn about the program before giving a knee jerk response please. All of the info is here ---> https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_...


    Some highlights...



    The proposed project to be financed with the ATVM loan must consist of either (1) the reequipping, expanding or establishing of a manufacturing facility located in the United States which will produce ATVs or ATV components or (2) engineering integration performed in the United States for ATVs or ATV components.



    The ATVM loan can only be used to reimburse the applicant for (i) costs that are reasonably related to reequipping, expanding or establishing a manufacturing facility in the United States or (ii) costs of engineering integration performed in the United States.



    ATVM loans are not intended to finance research and development costs.



    I guess keeping jobs in America isn't real high on the republican agenda. Well, unless those jobs are in the untouchable 'defense' sector. Killing folks is just so much more admirable than...
    This question is worded rather deceptively. These are LOANS that we are talking about, not grants or subsidies. If the folks who would like to see this loan program cut actually learned (if at all possible) what the program is for and how it is administrated then maybe they would have an argument. Take a few minutes to learn about the program before giving a knee jerk response please. All of the info is here ---> https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_...


    Some highlights...



    The proposed project to be financed with the ATVM loan must consist of either (1) the reequipping, expanding or establishing of a manufacturing facility located in the United States which will produce ATVs or ATV components or (2) engineering integration performed in the United States for ATVs or ATV components.



    The ATVM loan can only be used to reimburse the applicant for (i) costs that are reasonably related to reequipping, expanding or establishing a manufacturing facility in the United States or (ii) costs of engineering integration performed in the United States.



    ATVM loans are not intended to finance research and development costs.



    I guess keeping jobs in America isn't real high on the republican agenda. Well, unless those jobs are in the untouchable 'defense' sector. Killing folks is just so much more admirable than weaning ourselves off foreign oil and/or protecting the environment.
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Colbert 2011/06/11 05:39:36
    Yes
    Colbert
    +1
    Yup. They should also cut funding from national defense, congress, and every other communist program we have, like the missile defense shield.
  • Michael Hertel 2011/06/08 09:48:34
    Yes
    Michael Hertel
    +2
    Raise the price of gas( 10% with another 1% increase every month, it will do a much better job of getting us to use less.
  • Michael... Michael... 2011/07/31 09:29:21
    Michael Hertel
    The money which is going to the loan recipients as loans which are in fact repaid is not the problem it is the hugh number of these program which each must have a staff hired somewhere to oversee them. Let private companys lend money, just as suggested in previous post provide insentive to develop new technologies by raising the price of gas and stay out of the way.
  • RockyMtGirl BN 2011/06/08 07:07:51
    No
    RockyMtGirl BN
    +3
    NOT SURPRISED! The RWNJ's are against anything that will help the economy or the American people! They keep proving it over and over. In 2010, they held the budget hostage and demanded huge spending cuts, knowing full well, in a "recovering' economy, you invest, not cut spending. It was too premature to make such huge spending cuts. Now they know what those spending cuts did, and they still want more spending cuts; there will be more businesses going broke, more job losses, and the economy is going to take another nose dive. They're laughing behind our backs, it's what they want; they don't need a viable candidate if the economy goes into the ditch again!
    Now Pawlenty is proposing another huge set of additional tax cuts for the wealthiest over the next ten years; he wants to reduce the tax rate for the wealthiest down to 15%; he's under the delusion that this will produce jobs; that's not all... he stated that the government should cut funds to any source that can be "googled" ....WTH? This guy is beyond extreme! Is he "google-illiterate"?? That would bring up anything from Social Security, to FBI, police departments; Faa; ... everything comes up when you google it! If he becomes president, he'll be president of nothing, because that's what will be left when he's done cutting funds for everything that comes up when you google it!! ....BONKERS!!
  • #Justice4Trayvon 629 BLOCKT... 2011/06/08 04:49:52
    No
    #Justice4Trayvon 629 BLOCKT CONS
    +3
    Rescind the billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil companies who are already making double-digit pure profit. End corporate welfare & that money can help natural disaster victims for multiple decades to come.
  • Ozzyboy 2011/06/08 02:04:47
    Yes
    Ozzyboy
    +2
    Yes along with most of the frivolous spending programs shoved down on the American people in the last few years. The chevy volt is now the safest car in America, really?????? No government propaganda on that one.
  • Dan™: Real Change, Not Fals... 2011/06/07 23:00:15
    Yes
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    +1
    End subsidies. I'm sick of my tax dollars subsidizing all the people driving around in those damned Priuses.

    Joan Dowlin doesn't seem to realize that hybrids and electric cars are not really "clean cars" because they don't actually wean anybody off fossil fuels. The electricity used to charge electrics and hybrids comes from the power grid and most of the energy we use from the grid is derived from fossil fuels.

    It's just a wasteful boondoggle. Cut the clean car programs and ethanol subsidies and do it now!
  • Telly S... Dan™: R... 2011/06/07 23:20:09
    Telly Samba
    This article is about a loan program not subsidies. Why is that so difficult for people to grasp?
  • Dan™: R... Telly S... 2011/06/08 02:11:14 (edited)
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    It really doesn't matter whether it's a straight-up subsidy or a loan. The reason why is that our government currently is running a debt tab of over $14 trillion.

    This year alone the budget deficit is, what, $1.6 trillion? So how can the U.S. government loan money to the "clean cars" participants when they're borrowing from China to pay for trillions in debt?

    So in other words, the distinction you're making is irrelevant, and it doesn't speak to the points I made about the futility of pouring (borrowed) money that we don't have into programs that don't even do what they are intended to do: decrease use of fossil fuels.

    As I said above, "clean cars" are not any cleaner than the gasoline-powered cars we're driving now, because these so-called "clean cars" are still drawing their power from the coal/gas energy grid.
  • Telly S... Dan™: R... 2011/06/08 02:39:48
    Telly Samba
    +1
    It makes a huge difference whether it's a loan or a subsidy. Are you at all familiar with this particular program? By what you've stated so far it certainly appears you haven't read anything regarding the program itself.

    From the DOE website "The ATVM Loan Program supports the President’s goal to create green jobs in the automotive and component manufacturing industries and will help ensure that new advanced technology vehicles (ATV) meet a higher standard (125 percent of the 2005 base year CAFE fuel efficiency standards) than similarly classed conventional technology vehicles." Now that increase is not unrealistic and has nothing to do with hybrid vehicles alone or electric cars as you are implying. That increase over the CAFE standards is easily attainable and requiring the use of the funds to be used exclusively within the United States is definitely a boon to the economy.

    Have you ever been to Flint, MI.? Or Detroit, Lansing, Saginaw? There are numerous manufacturing facilities that have the potential to be refitted and put to good, worthwhile, use via this program. The other alternative is to let China (or any other industrialized nation) engineer and manufacture the vehicles and components. We have the facilities, manpower and capability to implement solid manufacturing ...

    It makes a huge difference whether it's a loan or a subsidy. Are you at all familiar with this particular program? By what you've stated so far it certainly appears you haven't read anything regarding the program itself.

    From the DOE website "The ATVM Loan Program supports the President’s goal to create green jobs in the automotive and component manufacturing industries and will help ensure that new advanced technology vehicles (ATV) meet a higher standard (125 percent of the 2005 base year CAFE fuel efficiency standards) than similarly classed conventional technology vehicles." Now that increase is not unrealistic and has nothing to do with hybrid vehicles alone or electric cars as you are implying. That increase over the CAFE standards is easily attainable and requiring the use of the funds to be used exclusively within the United States is definitely a boon to the economy.

    Have you ever been to Flint, MI.? Or Detroit, Lansing, Saginaw? There are numerous manufacturing facilities that have the potential to be refitted and put to good, worthwhile, use via this program. The other alternative is to let China (or any other industrialized nation) engineer and manufacture the vehicles and components. We have the facilities, manpower and capability to implement solid manufacturing and engineering of those vehicles and parts here. Why not try to make the best of our assets and give people some manufacturing jobs while we're at it. The alternative is to let other nations take the initiative in a burgeoning market and let our manufacturing sector fall even further behind.

    I don't see you making any positive suggestions as to how to move forward at all. You're just bitching about a topic that you have very little knowledge about and offering nothing but your negativity.
    (more)
  • Dan™: R... Telly S... 2011/06/08 02:56:25 (edited)
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    Look, it's very simple: if we don't have the money to spend, it really doesn't matter whether it's a loan or subsidy, whether we're talking about hybrids or electric vehicles. It's all money we don't have to spend. Why do you have such a difficult time understanding this basic economic reality? My "negativity" is simply realism.
  • Telly S... Dan™: R... 2011/06/08 03:24:21
    Telly Samba
    While it is true that we don't have money to spend on all government programs this particular program is much more deserving of support than many, many others. To pretend that this program is a waste of funds doesn't make any sense. Especially in light of many of our defense expenditures. The ATVM loan program has the potential to revitalize cities that have existing facilities and experienced manpower readily available. It is an infinitely better investment than, say, the Iraq Security Forces Fund which spent over a billion dollars last year training and equipping Iraq's internal security forces. I guess to some folks it's more important to supply cops in Iraq with arms, armor, equipment and training than it is to give gainful employment to displaced auto workers in Michigan. I thought republicans were elected last year on a creating jobs platform. This is one program that has a realistic chance of actually creating some of those jobs. That is realism.
  • Dan™: R... Telly S... 2011/06/08 03:45:29
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    We spend 20% of GDP on defense. How is that unreasonable for the lone world super-power? Please explain?

    And as I pointed out, this "clean cars" program is a total waste to the extent that "clean cars" still require drawing energy from the predominantly fossil fuels energy grid. Add to that the fact that so-called "clean cars" production is far more fossil fuel intensive than the production of regular vehicles, and you've got a total boondoggle on your hands.

    That's not realism, it's Left-wing idealism run amok, and it needs to end now.
  • Telly S... Dan™: R... 2011/06/08 14:33:55
  • Dan™: R... Telly S... 2011/06/09 13:25:09 (edited)
    Dan™: Real Change, Not False Hope
    "Since we definitely are the world's lone super power the more appropriate question is why do we need to spend 20% of our GDP on 'defense'?"

    We are the world's lone superpower precisely because we spend so much on defense. Surely you can see the obvious correlation between our military spending and our superpower status? It's the old "Walk softly and carry a big stick" philosophy.

    As for your statement about my position on so-called "clean cars," I don't pretend to be an "expert" on the issue like you claim to be; but I've read about these programs, studied the issue, and immersed myself in the inconvenient facts about these programs.

    You want to ignore the reality that "clean cars" are not really any cleaner than conventional vehicles because there simply isn't a viable alternative to fossil fuels at this point. Your arguments are all based on hypothetical future benefits of the programs, but you ignore the present realities.
  • bob h. Dan™: R... 2011/06/10 00:16:51
    bob h.
    Sorry, Toyota gets no loans from the USA. Wake up.
  • Assault 2011/06/07 19:40:13
    No
    Assault
    +1
    You can argue over weather there is Global Warming going on and what not, but you would have to be stupid to disagree with the hard facts about the pollution effects. I'm not sure about a few people, but I do understand that I actually like enjoying my life with out an oxygen tank strapped to my back... Not to mention the better gas mileage, if they really wanted to solve it they would have but everyone has to play the game right now of the Oil companies, so we have to take bitch steps and halt the progress of our nation, just so a few elites can steal more money.
  • Delta 2011/06/07 18:56:49
    Yes
    Delta
    +1
    They need to tone it down. Now everyone can purchase one of these cars and anyway it's not the time to be spending billions on something that is going to sit around until its all perfected. These things are not practical and are not ready for real people. Obama is so confident that he can dictate what Americans are gonna do that I guess he believes he is going to give every one the money to purchase one of these wind up toys. AS with everything else this administration is talking out of each side of it's mouth; say money then spend money and not really doing anything to help America.
  • sglmom 2011/06/07 18:55:04
    Yes
    sglmom
    +2
    Cut 100% of the funding ..

    IF it can NOT stand alone as a business venture .. if it can NOT make it withOUT digging so deeply into our Taxpayer Pockets (for a product that the vast majority of us can NOT afford and find it is totally impractical for our uses) ..

    AT This point in time .. time to cut this Subsidization Of Selected /corporations/ (well-connected to political inner circles) .. and you know .. live withIN a Budget .. (something that Congress nor these selective /corporations/ with connections know about).
  • petroleum guy 2011/06/07 17:56:16
    Yes
    petroleum guy
    +2
    it's really expensive to have those cars and the government should not fund any car company. simple as that. the only thing the government should fund are public schools and law agencies
  • petrole... petrole... 2011/06/07 18:05:03
    petroleum guy
    +1
    it starts out with the company getting loans from the government people. then they start getting paid, not loans. then the government hires some person or people to be in charge of that business and they make political decisions. then the company becomes a puppet of the government and what do you know! socialism!
  • sbtbill petrole... 2011/06/07 18:33:31
    sbtbill
    Look at the weather. Look at gas prices. The national security of the US demands we come up with cars that are not run on gasoline.
  • petrole... sbtbill 2011/06/07 18:40:53
    petroleum guy
    +1
    what do you suppose cars run on?
    ethanol- uses up land, harder to make, makes oil look green
    electricity- long time to charge, expensive
    hydrogen fuel cell- complicated, very expensive, hard to find fueling stations
  • Telly S... petrole... 2011/06/07 21:19:22
    Telly Samba
    Fuel cells are complicated? I hope that was intended as sarcasm.

    fuel cells complicated hope intended sarcasm

    You simply borrow an electron for a short period and then rejoin it with it's proton. If that's complicated then internal combustion engines must seem like magic to you.
  • petrole... Telly S... 2011/06/07 22:12:39
    petroleum guy
    and i suppose you are one of those environmental hippies. also, when you compare that to an internal combustion engine, it is complicated.
  • Telly S... petrole... 2011/06/07 22:23:08
    Telly Samba
    No, I'm definitely not "one of those environmental hippies."

    Even if I were it doesn't change the simplicity of the workings of a fuel cell. How is something that uses a system comprised of zero moving parts, an anode, a cathode and a polymer membrane more complicated than an internal combustion engine? If you look at the diagram I posted you would see exactly how a fuel cell operates. That isn't just a small piece of a fuel cell, it's the entire thing. If you think fuel cells are more complicated than internal combustion engines you know absolutely nothing about them.
  • petrole... Telly S... 2011/06/09 20:16:15
    petroleum guy
    they're expensive!!!! and hard to make! and that's what i mean by complicated.
  • Michael... petrole... 2011/07/31 09:52:01
    Michael Hertel
    Cars for in the city travel should be lightweight, human electic hybrides. With several sizes ranging from 1 to many occupants that can be connected together with lead car in control of all of them. Currently govenrment rules( inspired by car companys perhaps) are getting in the way. I would like to build 4 wheeled cars with top speed of 40-50 miles per hour but then it would need to meet all crash tests and it could not since it will not weigh in at 3000 pounds but rather I hope less than 300 pounds. Would you be as safe as if you were in a tank, no but you could make it move at a reasonable speed by human power alone.

    Currently speeds of a human electic hybride are limited in many states to 20-25 miles per hour is that reasonable when on an ordinary bike you are only limited by the speed limit?
  • carri byers 2011/06/07 17:36:59 (edited)
    Yes
    carri byers
    +6
    The government should get out of subsidizing ANY business - WE ARE BROKE ! We can't afford to subsidize ANYTHING that can't make it or break it on it's own merit - and that includes our farmers. Get government entirely out of "free market" so it can actually be free again.
  • Telly S... carri b... 2011/06/07 21:21:36
    Telly Samba
    Loans are not subsidies. The two should not be confused. The article clearly states that this is a loan program.
  • carri b... Telly S... 2011/06/08 13:05:02
    carri byers
    A subsidy by any other name. It's still money we don't have being given to an industry that should be able to stand on it's own or fall on it's own.
  • Telly S... carri b... 2011/06/08 14:42:20
    Telly Samba
    Ever buy a house? Did the bank subsidize the purchase? No, they loaned you the money. Why? Because they are just nice folks with altruistic intentions? No. Because they made a profit.

    Learn about the program and what the loan requirements are, the potential for job growth and the utilization of existing manufacturing facilities. That is, unless you'd rather have China develop, market and profit from this growing industry rather than America.
  • carri b... Telly S... 2011/06/08 15:10:40
    carri byers
    The banks have MONEY!!! We don't - we just print money with nothing behind it but hope and promise with ink from CHINA!

    I don't have a problem with developing, marketing and profiting from the inevitable transition to green energy - I have a problem with the government being the major impetus behind the movement and using tax revenues WE DON'T HAVE to build the infrastructure for an industry that may, in some distant future may repay the loan.

    The subsidies the government paid to the oil industry was used to keep gas affordable. I don't see that happening with green energy. Gas efficient cars are always more costly than gas guzzelers.
  • Telly S... carri b... 2011/06/08 15:27:51
    Telly Samba
    So...banks have money and gas is affordable? What reality is it that you call home? I guess the banks didn't actually need the bush bailouts then did they? Since gas is affordable then people need to praise the subsidies and stop bitching about gas prices then too, huh? Also, why is it that gas guzzlers are cheaper than fuel efficient cars? Think those oil companies just might have something to do with it?

    If you really support what you claim to at the beginning of your second paragraph then you would see that this program is a boon to the economy. At least more so than many of the untouchable 'defense' programs. My whole point is that this has the potential to do something positive for states like Michigan. If we're going to spend a single nickel on any program at all, be it loans, subsidies, grants, etc...those programs should have the potential to aid in our economic recovery. This program does. Many of the programs supported, and vigilantly protected, by the GOP do not. If you're going to gamble you don't do so at a known crooked table where the profit potential is non existent.
  • carri b... Telly S... 2011/06/08 15:37:14
    carri byers
    Ok, it's clear you have been totally indoctrinated in your POV (as have I, I will admit) and neither of us will gain anything further from this discussion but expressing our perspectives to un-heeding ears, so let's just end this conversation by agreeing to disagree.
  • davyd god loving patriot 2011/06/07 17:33:26
    Yes
    davyd god loving patriot
    +2
    I heard last night the car dealers are stealing the cash incentives and selling the green cars as used. WHAT A COUNTRY !!!!!!!!!!! If it wasn't for the democrats, terrorists, and the left America would be doing great
  • Robin 2011/06/07 17:18:57
    Undecided
    Robin
    +2
    "The planet" fraud is no answer, but would we rather pay the Chinese for batteries or OPEC for the oil? I vote for China if I had to do one or the other while I drive around in my 'old technology', mostly made in America car.
  • urwutuis 2011/06/07 16:55:03
    No
    urwutuis
    +1
    I don't know why but Conservatives are always opposed to anything environmental.

    The spending problem is the military. We spend 6 times more than anyone on the planet for the most wasteful organization in existence. We could cut their budget in half and still be light-years ahead of anyone else.
  • carri b... urwutuis 2011/06/07 17:46:37 (edited)
    carri byers
    +1
    No, we are against anything that puts government in bed with businesses or corporations. Every time that happens the two get WAAAAAY too cozy and costly fornication usually takes place. Since the government has got into the environmental business, it has it's people in bed with every manufacturing business in the country. We saw the effects of that with Deepwater Horizon. We ended up with the worst deepsea spill in history (which didn't amount to much as the damage to the sea is practically non-existence...the only lasting damage having occurred because Obama's incompetence with dealing with the spill allowed the oil to reach shore) because the supposed "oversight" didn't over see.

    It's interesting that you want to cut military spending when your president has embroiled us in two further military engagements bringing the grand total of on going wars to THREE, count them 1, 2, 3,....with no end in sight for any of them. Yeah, cutting the military in 1/2 would be an excellent move! If you want to cut the military get your president to bring our troops home - from everywhere - and put the reserve where it ought to be - on our borders stopping the invasion from the south.
  • urwutuis carri b... 2011/06/08 04:53:07
    urwutuis
    My president? Do you have a different one?
    What you saw with Deepwater was sidestepping of the law which was changed in order to cut costs and approved under Bush.
    Meanwhile amidst the worst disaster in history Conservatives stuck up for oil and wanted to drill more wells when they couldn't even stop the one that was destroying the gulf crying that Obama had a "Boot to the throat" of BP (Glen just cracks me up) for getting $20 billion for damages.
    Do you guys wear blinders AND have a short memory?
    You whine about oil dependence and then cut all the programs designed to end it.


    I didn't say cut the military in half I said cut their budget in half. If you want the troops home stop supplying the money to keep them overseas.

    My president only involved us in 1 more engagement {without ground troops} maybe your president got us in 2 more.

    Oh wait. What was I thinking?
    Let's cut funding for clean energy to ensure we remain tethered to oil so we can justify the wars and keep bleeding the country dry.
    After all, the money is going straight to Bush's old man and Cheney's pals. What could be cozier?
    You whine about leaving our grandchildren a mountain of debt but only want to attack the symptom and not the problem.
    You don't care about leaving a polluted planet with rising temperatures ...
    My president? Do you have a different one?
    What you saw with Deepwater was sidestepping of the law which was changed in order to cut costs and approved under Bush.
    Meanwhile amidst the worst disaster in history Conservatives stuck up for oil and wanted to drill more wells when they couldn't even stop the one that was destroying the gulf crying that Obama had a "Boot to the throat" of BP (Glen just cracks me up) for getting $20 billion for damages.
    Do you guys wear blinders AND have a short memory?
    You whine about oil dependence and then cut all the programs designed to end it.


    I didn't say cut the military in half I said cut their budget in half. If you want the troops home stop supplying the money to keep them overseas.

    My president only involved us in 1 more engagement {without ground troops} maybe your president got us in 2 more.

    Oh wait. What was I thinking?
    Let's cut funding for clean energy to ensure we remain tethered to oil so we can justify the wars and keep bleeding the country dry.
    After all, the money is going straight to Bush's old man and Cheney's pals. What could be cozier?
    You whine about leaving our grandchildren a mountain of debt but only want to attack the symptom and not the problem.
    You don't care about leaving a polluted planet with rising temperatures and ever increasing natural disasters as long as gas doesn't go over $5 or the Dow under 12.
    Conservatives have opposed every environmental and conservation proposal brought up for the last 50 years. If it were up to you we would still be using leaded gas.
    (more)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/23 17:37:46

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals