Should the Government Cut Funding From Clean Car Programs?

by SodaHead Politics Posted 2011/06/06 19:30:59

Related Topics: Clean Car, Budget, Budget Cuts, Fema, Disaster Relief, Joplin, Eco-friendly, Cars, Emissions, Environment, Global Warming, Huffington Post, Debt, Fuel, GOP

Read More

214 votes
Read all 359 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	133 votes	62%
	No	72 votes	34%
	Undecided	9 votes	4%

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.

+14

Add a comment above

Telly Samba 2011/06/07 13:25:23 (edited)

No

+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)
>> See Replies

More polls by SodaHead Politics

Xed0 2011/06/07 00:43:27

Yes

+1
They should also allow european car companies to bring over more of their clean diesel cars, versus enforcing the "eco friendly" cars to be gas powered.

reply
PoliticallyIncorrect 2011/06/07 00:35:34

Yes

+2
Clean cars is just one more way the Obamass regime has of redistributing the wealth. Always follow the money. It's pretty obvious, that the plan has little to do with the planet and a whole lot to do with greedy liberals who have already been playing the green game ad nauseum. It made a lying Gore a millionaire and is designed to help the rest of the liberals snatch America out of the jaws of success per the Muslim-loving, Communist Obamass.

reply
fancyman9 2011/06/07 00:34:45 (edited)

Yes

+4
This isn't the governments buisness. But someone or some private company wants to give a grant to this car maker, then more power to them. What the money needs to be spent on is drilling oil. We can't make cars that run on hydrogen yet, but we can make ones that run on oil quite easily.

Also, the fact that liberals at the huffington post are still clinging to "global warming" is quite laughable.

reply
Scottie 2011/06/07 00:30:04

Yes

+3
THE GOV'T NEEDS TO GET OUT OF EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

reply
relic 2011/06/07 00:12:43

Yes

+2
If the government is involved, stop it.

reply
Andrew 2011/06/07 00:12:35

Yes

+3
Funding such programs is not governments business. It is a waste of tax payers money and should be halted immediately.

reply
jon 2011/06/06 23:59:34

Yes

+2
just yes for chrips sake just yes

reply
highroad1960 2011/06/06 23:57:35

Yes

+3
Yes, the goverment should not be taking our tax dollars and give it to people for buying a car of the governments choosing. There should be no kind of subsidy for any kind of car. When people want a car they will buy it on it's merit, because it is more efficient, luxurios, reliable or for whatever reason they decide they want to purchase a vehicle. If so called green cars ever meet these criterias people will buy them. We don't need no stinking goverment telling us what to buy and that includes healthcare.

reply
T1 2011/06/06 23:56:52

Yes

+4
spend the money drilling at home for OIL....we know it works.

reply
Anna 2011/06/06 23:52:05

Undecided

+1
Okay: depending on what you mean by 'programs' , some are only through donations and TV in which case I'd probably say yes. Others are almost 'in person.' Those, not so much. Needless to say: most car washes are at least $1 over what most people want but that price is fine to keep too

reply
MadAsHEck to Anna 2011/06/07 01:37:35

By programs we mean are giving a buyer up to $7500 of taxpayers money for buying a $41000 Chevy Volt. That will go about 40 miles electrically then go farther at 35 MPG on gasoline. The Volt on the lot up the street by the way has a sticker on the window of $54,000.

Or buying a Nissan leaf and getting a $7500 dollar bonus from Taxpayers money to buy a $35000 Plus car that goes 50 miles and needs a charge for hours.

reply
jay 2011/06/06 23:51:00

Yes

+1
They should hold off until the whole global warming thing reaches a conclusion.

Check out this most recent peer reviewed study which concludes that the sun is responsible for the recent global warming.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot...

reply
Old Sch... to jay 2011/06/07 02:40:33

The leading cause of temprature fluctuation is...

MANIPULATION OF THE DATA!

reply
jay to Old Sch... 2011/06/07 12:47:06

+1
Certainly does look like that is in the mix. The data is what it is the manipulation of data to reach preconceived conclusions is the problem.

reply
Old Sch... to jay 2011/06/08 01:32:42

Exactly. Have you noticed,if it's a drought or flood...MMGW. If there's lots of snow or too little...MMGW.
Regardless of what the "sheet music" says...the Enviro-Marxist will just keep beating that MMGW drum.

reply
SAILOR 2011/06/06 23:46:14

Yes

+4
Cut all programs and departments that are not in the Constitution.

reply
jr23 2011/06/06 23:34:31

Yes

+2
there is already a clean economical design used in most of the world
clean diesel 40 to 60 mpg in decent sized cars and lt trucks
no subsidy needed

reply
citizen-cain 2011/06/06 23:29:28

Yes

+1
We are teetering toward national bankruptcy. The "clean car" programs are just one more straw on the camel's back. It won't be long before it breaks. If you want to cut the deficit, this is an excellent place to start. How about first thing tomorrow morning? We better do it soon; Standard and Poor's just downgraded Uncle Sam's credit. Are you surprised?

reply
wtf 2011/06/06 23:28:24

Yes

+3
Car companies that want to produce these vehicles should do so with their own funds. There is no reason that the government should be backing research that has already been done. There were cars designed 30 years ago that were getting better gas mileage than cars today and they weighed more then. There is already hybrid cars, cars that run on propane, even cars that run on compressed air.

reply
MadAsHEck to wtf 2011/06/07 01:39:43

+1
Interesting that Toyota did just that. started 10 years ago, now over a million on the road, and rising. 50 MPG Prius.

No govbernment subsidizing etc. just free market development and sales. Go figure!!

reply
Old Sch... to wtf 2011/06/07 02:44:02

Good points. On the weight thing, the NTSB has stats that there were some 2000 add'l hwy death due to reduced mass of cars.I think in a 10-yr period.

reply
nolibsperiod 2011/06/06 23:24:20

Yes

+1
Who cares. Let em' the cars belch away. GOD's on his way. It's the end...pretty dang soon. I hope anyways.

reply
SCOOP--RIP, MY DEAR MAX 2011/06/06 23:19:17

Yes

+2
Yes, cut it. Those cars are expensive and most Americans will not be able to afford them.

reply
nolibsp... to SCOOP--... 2011/06/06 23:25:14

+2
Besides there ugly. Reminds me of Liberals.

reply
MadAsHEck to nolibsp... 2011/06/07 01:46:44

+1
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder :)

And for me beauty is in the eyes of the Gas mileage. 49.2 MPG over 15,000 miles.

reply
Old Sch... to MadAsHEck 2011/06/07 02:48:31

+1
To each his own. A clown car like that may be OK for some around town,but a road trip...forget it.

I have seen many of this genre of cars out here on the "Big Road" laboring to move 3-4 occupants w/luggage. They are simply not made for that. And with the suspension maxxed out,it will handle different and the ride sucks to boot!

reply
MadAsHEck to Old Sch... 2011/06/07 06:15:44 (edited)

+2
I guess you havent a clue on the Prius. We have made 4000 mile trips and it drives like any other car. just cheaper. Freeway speed 70-75 all day, climb grades on Cruise control , just like any car. Seats 4 adults comfortably, and has plenty of room for luggage. We carry my wifes Battery powered Scooter in the rear all the time. All at an average 48-50 MPG.

Drive it up Cajon Pass at 70 MPH on cruise, Across the Mojave numerous times. I-40 to Ok. I-70 Denver to Vegas, you name it. I-15 Vegas to I-90 to Seatte We been there.

So you need to get a clue. 0-60 in 9 seconds, I've had it to 94 MPH on the road the picture was taken. And I sure can leave 18 Wheelers behind all day long. So if you see them Maxed out, its the Driver, not the car. Try one, you'll be surprised.

Over a Million Americans have bought them, so they must not be all that bad. And how many cars with 400,000 miles on them with minimum maintenance can you tell me about?

Cant tow with it, but we would rather Motel anyway.

reply
nolibsp... to MadAsHEck 2011/06/07 18:52:09

Their goes your cost average.....MOTELs. If you don't lease the batteries wait till you get the bill for he new ones.

reply
MadAsHEck to nolibsp... 2011/06/07 18:55:56

I checked on that - $1800 installed. But they are lasting in excess of 200,000 miles on average. And warranted for 100,000 miles. So your argument holds no water.

Have you ever had to replace a Tranny or Engine after about 100,000 miles on a conventional car? Makes $1800 look cheap.

And we save $1500 per year in gas, pays for a lot of Motels and dining on trips in a year.

reply
nolibsp... to MadAsHEck 2011/06/07 19:01:15

+1
Not bad...Just like you I take care of my vehicles. Diesels last 500,000 easy with just maint. D.o my own work if needs so that's a plus for me. Even my farm tractors don't go to shops. Motels...can't use em' take my pets everywhere I go. Like my own bed both in motorhomes and sleeper shell on P.U's. All and all I really don't care how much fuel cost. LORD's been good to me

reply
MadAsHEck to nolibsp... 2011/06/07 19:06:32

+1
We had vans for the last 10 years as we had a big 100 Lb Aussie Shepard travelling with us. 28 MPG at best, downhill with a tailwind. We seldom had a problem finding motels that accept pets. Lost my buddy 2 years ago, so went down in car size.

Thats why we appreciate the 49 MPG now. Being retired and on fixed income, $1500 per year is a great thing.

reply
nolibsp... to MadAsHEck 2011/06/07 19:08:31

Your happy what else matters. See your good conduct master chief huh?

reply
MadAsHEck to nolibsp... 2011/06/07 19:14:43

+1
No - got out on 20. Just Chief, but was a good Boy.

Was up for E-8 and decided that 20 was all we could handle. Raised 5 kids, and it was rough on Military pay.

So we got out and I was able to make better money as a Electronic Tech. Hired on with 3M and they trained me. great company.

reply
nolibsp... to MadAsHEck 2011/06/08 14:54:28 (edited)
MadAsHEck to nolibsp... 2011/06/08 17:03:52

+1
Naval Weather Service. Flight Breifing Forecaster with secondary job of Oceanograpy in ASW warfare. Lotsa time in P3's out over the atlantic chasing "Charlie"

reply
nolibsp... to MadAsHEck 2011/06/09 15:01:54

You seem like you enjoyed your tour. That's great. I have two dear friends both E9 marines sargent majors. One 87 going on 21 and the other 78 in poor health but still can squeeze off a few rounds at the local range. Both combat veterans. Their whole life was their career. LIke I said before I was caught up in Vietnam real early, and got out before I was tuned out. My family all military but none retired. Some like my father were killed. You have probaly seen some of my post ranking on LIfers who I defined as ones who could'nt do anything else and the military put up with them. They worry about what the military can do for them. Not what they can do for country and military. Another pet pieve was authority and respect for such. I never disobeyed an order, but was misfortunate to be given those orders by people I had no respect for as leaders. Maybe a rarity. But that was my luck of the draw. Happy the way things are today. Let the main man handle all my problems now.

reply
Old Sch... to MadAsHEck 2011/06/08 01:50:47

Hey, if it works well for you,great. I don't know a thing about them. It actually sounds better than I would've thought.
FYI,check the sticker in the door jamb. It'll give you tare/gross wts. I was suprised to see that a Corvette only has a payload capacity of around 375 pounds.

And I would hope a car could outrun a semi...duh.

Over a million Americans bought Beta-Max units as well.

I'm not at 400K, but my Crown Vic is close to 200K with minimal maintenance expense. Oh, I've had it a few years and paid only $1500 @ a city auction. 140 MPH and 25MPG. I could but a small fleet for the price of one prius. Like I said, to each his own.

reply
MadAsHEck to Old Sch... 2011/06/08 01:55:04

+1
Yup! thats what a tool is supposed to do. The job you buy it for. and a Car is just a tool after all.

reply
MadAsHEck to Old Sch... 2011/06/08 02:11:03

Prius - Loaded $26,000 to $28,000 sticker price.

Chev Volt MSRP $41,000 and sticker at the local dealer is $54,000

Leaf is about $35,000.

reply
Old Sch... to MadAsHEck 2011/06/08 03:47:01

Even if II went "high end"...I could get a dozen of these cop specials. (I only by the captain or inspector cars...they have the original back seat, ect.

Enjoyed the exchange here with you. thanks.

reply