It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government Motors Volt Costs Taxpayers $250,000 per Vehicle

page: 18
25
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


You don't really have a right to complain or even a leg to stand on here as you backed the policies blindly that led to GM being in this predicament in the first place.

Yet any lame arse excuse to slam good olde fashioned Yankee Ingenuity!
edit on 4-1-2012 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Too much vitriol to my taste...



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
You don't really have a right to complain or even a leg to stand on here as you backed the policies blindly that led to GM being in this predicament in the first place.


Really? How so? Was I the one telling General Motors to make mediocre cars, to enter uncompetitive labor contracts and to have poor management? Was that me?


Yet any lame arse excuse to slam good olde fashioned Yankee Ingenuity!


There is nothing ingenious about sticking your grubby hands out to the government, as a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Then what's this then?

That's what happens when you ask The US Federal Government, they own you until you pay them off and that is that! You must sign away as collateral your property, your operations, the entire kit and kaboodle everything and anything business owned! That is that! GM knows it don't pay the Govt back by the time the agreement elapses it will be no more!

It obviously was above board and legal because something you never knew is that during the entire process that SCOTUS and The US Dept Of Justice were heavily involved with this entire ordeal from the getgo to ensure that every move made was legal. They were kept in the loop on everything as it was happening and no one moved forth on anything before both had a chance to step in at anytime to express any concern they had to keep the entire loan process and application legal so no laws could be broken and so that The DOJ could using it's reach, muscle and authourity could oversight the entire ordeal. Hence why the taxpayer's monitorial and financial interest was constantly protected.

If either SCOTUS or The US DOJ would've had any inkling that the entire process was illegal or treading upon illegal territory both were fully authourized by The Office Of POTUS and The White House to intervene at anytime. Every kind of scenario was well thought out and factored in covering like 20 different possible outcomes! This is facts and not some boneheaded reject opinion.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
You two must be related somehow! This much ignorance of fact and surrender to the "progressive" ideology is unlikely random or un-coordinated.
You fail to see that GM and Obama are funneling taxpayer dollars to mollify their biggest supporters, including Communist China!


Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

That's why they can't stand it, because an American company who is employing Americans in America is receiving accolades like this and once production is on fully I expect 500,000 Volt or Volt tech driven hybrids in full production by 2017. Not to forget to mention is when the Gen 2 Volt launches sometime between 2017 - 2019 that the tech will be literate miles ahead of where we are on now.


All this sputtering about "American jobs" and "American industry" is nothing but hysterical gibberish.

Care to see what Obama and GM are planning for your Volt, our technology, and American tax subsidies?
This is from GM's latest Board of Director's meeting - in Shanghai, China!


General Motors agreed in Shanghai today to develop an electric vehicle platform with longtime Chinese partner SAIC. It effectively moves GM's future electric vehicle development to China.

U.S. lawmakers have complained that China is "shaking down" GM to get Volt secrets. Electric vehicle development in the U.S. has been developed with extensive U.S. taxpayer funding.

GM Vice Chairman Steve Girsky, in a conference call from Shanghai, said that neither SAIC nor the Chinese government have demanded Volt technology. Any future EV would, of course, draw on GM's Volt experience and technology. Under the deal, SAIC and GM will equally share the cost of developing a new all-electric vehicle, Girsky said.

GM plans to start exporting Michigan-made Volts to China by year's end, but isn't likely to sell many. The Chinese government is pushing electrics with a subsidy that amounts to about $19,000 per car -- but only if the car is made in China. No imports allowed.

Girsky hinted that the Volt could eventually be built in China.

GM deal moves electric car development to China -- a 'shakedown'?

How do you fit this sell-out into your miniature thought process and intellectual maze? You never saw this coming, did you?

How's that support your idiotic rants? You do realize (no, you don't; I forgot) that the entire US auto industry sold fewer than 6 million vehicles TOTAL this year, don't you? You and Indigo insist that phony "projections" of future producttion and sales somehow "debunk" simple math that even GM does not dispute.

Now, the propped-up failure reveals its intention to move production to China, manufacture hundreds of thousands of EVs in China, and GIVE Chinese competitors the EV technology that stolen US taxpayer dollars have funded!

We really do not need any more such "patriotism."


Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by jdub297
 


First those making $170,000 a year are not the 1%!


Of course they are. Are you incapable of reading the IRS tables that I've published and that are public record?

You can't just imagine something and claim it's a fact.


Second, Motor Trend praised this up and down and to cite them to help out your case is meaningless and useless.
Fads are the norm for MotorTrend, hype is their forte'. Get a grip. The cited article was published before the facts were revealed about the cost and marketing disaster, not to mention the recalls and buy-backs.


Third, Someone who makes less then $75,000 a year can afford one.


So what? If you want to spend 80% of your disposable income on a Volt, go for it. More proof of a basic lack of integrity and common sense.

deny ignorance
jw

edit on 4-1-2012 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Thread closed pending staff review.

~Tothetenthpower
ATS Moderator



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

ATTENTION!!!!!


This thread is being reopened.

However, any posts that are rude, ill-mannered, off topic, trollish or otherwise against the T&C will be removed...with the very real possibility of a Posting Ban applied.
This is a one-time only warning.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

You are responsible for your own posts.

edit on Fri Jan 6 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Mods,

thanks for taking your time to review this thread. While we are at it, how about the title being grossly misleading? It's literally a lie. One takes a number of vehicles in the limited production run as the base for calculation, whereas there are production increases of two orders of magnitude for the next couple of years.

It's like saying that I paid $2,700 in my 2012 insurance premium and so far, in January of 2012, made one visit to my doctor. Next, I open a thread saying "Doctor visits costing $2,700 became a norm in America".

I really don't see how it's OK with you guys.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


It's the source title, more or less
Chevy Volt Costing Taxpayers Up to $250K Per Vehicle
www.michigancapitolconfidential.com...

Members are free to debunk this...as long as it is done in a civil manner.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

...
One takes a number of vehicles in the limited production run as the base for calculation, whereas there are production increases of two orders of magnitude for the next couple of years.


"Limited production run?" Should we wait until production is moved to China before we count production?

After Receiving Bailout, GM May Move Volt Production to China

We could always use the number of vehicles "sold," less the number of vehicles "called back" or repurchased:

7,671-7,671 = 0 net vehicles. This would probably be a more accurate figure for calulating the cost of the subsidies, tax credits, dealer incentives, et c.
GM to Call Back 8,000 Chevy Volts
(Time)
See, also:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

www.npr.org...

This is subject to an in-depth ATS discussion:

AP Source: GM to call back 8,000 Chevy Volts


Ooops!

jw


edit on 6-1-2012 by jdub297 because: quote



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

...
One takes a number of vehicles in the limited production run as the base for calculation, whereas there are production increases of two orders of magnitude for the next couple of years.


"Limited production run?" Should we wait until production is moved to China before we count production?

After Receiving Bailout, GM May Move Volt Production to China


I'm quoting your source:

As per the arrangement, GM started exporting Michigan-made Volts to China


That's one. Can I spell it for you? Michigan-made. What part of Michigan-made exported to China is so hard to digest?

Second, the article contains a conjecture that a joint venture may eventually lead to production in China, and nothing concrete. Third, I clicked on the source quoted on Yahoo and immediately overdosed on Glen Becks photos. Which goes to show that just like with the article in the OP, this is just a hit piece based on rabid right ideology, with disregard to facts and numbers. Bleh.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Actually, it also states this



“The Chinese government is pushing electrics with a subsidy that amounts to about $19,000 per car — but only if the car is made in China. No imports allowed,” writes Chris Woodyard of USA Today. “There also are tariffs on cars imported to China, which lawmakers argue are unfair and may violate world trade rules.”

But, as mentioned in the above, what has some people truly upset is the fact that Girsky hinted that the Volt could eventually be built in China.


So, while it doesn't say without a doubt Gm will move manufacturing, it hints that GM may move manufacturing to China.
But, it is also cryptic in suggesting manufacturing move could be specifically for units sold in China, but why just move to China to sell to China, when manufacturing there and then exporting would more then likely be more profitable for GM in the long run.
Plus, not to mention that the Chinese Govt will offer a $19k subsidy to GM for each unit sold.

Yeah GM!!!!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That's one. Can I spell it for you? Michigan-made. What part of Michigan-made exported to China is so hard to digest?


Why did you leave out the next part?


" but not for sale"


The whole deal is set up for Chinese production based upon taxpayer-funded technology!

As if the free government money wasn't enough, now GM is going to take advantage of cheap (non-union) Chinese labor and production to try to boost profits even further. Hence, the UAW and Steelworkers' opposition to the plan.

People can deny this all they want, but the truth is there for anyone willing to see.


The first Chevrolet Volt EVs arrived in China at the HaiTong Port in Shanghai this month. The Volts are part of a 10-vehicle General Motors demonstration fleet to be deployed in Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai.

Due to a combination of tariffs and incentives for locally-produced Chinese vehicles – at the core of China’s job creating industrial policy – the Michigan built Volt (more than $40,000 in the U.S. without government incentives) will be at about a $19,000 per hybrid disadvantage, not good news for UAW employees who build the Volt in Hamtramck.

Unsubsidized Volt EVs will be priced at RMB 498,000 (~$79,000), which is laughably non-competitive.

GM intends to use Chinese battery suppliers in future electric vehicles that are now under development in China with SAIC – the latest setback for beleaguered U.S. workers who are facing grim employment prospects in the moribund U.S. economy. This is no longer a blue-collar or solely a UAW problem.

Worse, for GM shareholders, China earlier this month imposed additional punitive tariffs of almost 22% on top of existing 25% taxes on the import of the vehicles into China in an apparent violation of WTO rules. The U.S. – or Uncle SAP – only imposes a 2.5% tariff on vehicle imports.

autoinformed.com...

Wow! What a great idea!

jw



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Actually, it also states this



“The Chinese government is pushing electrics with a subsidy that amounts to about $19,000 per car — but only if the car is made in China. No imports allowed,” writes Chris Woodyard of USA Today. “There also are tariffs on cars imported to China, which lawmakers argue are unfair and may violate world trade rules.”

But, as mentioned in the above, what has some people truly upset is the fact that Girsky hinted that the Volt could eventually be built in China.


So, while it doesn't say without a doubt Gm will move manufacturing, it hints that GM may move manufacturing to China.


So we talk about hints of a doubt. Great source!

Well, how about

In November 2010, General Motors began investingUS$138.3 million at its engine operations plant in Flint, Michigan to support increased production of the Ecotec 1.4-liter engine that is used in the Chevrolet Cruze, the upcoming 2012 Chevrolet Sonic, and the variant used in the Chevrolet Volt. The Flint plant was expected to start production of 400 engines a day in early 2011, ramp up daily production to 800 engines in late 2011, and to increase its capacity to 1,200 a day by late 2012. In May 2011, General Motors decided to invest an additional US$84 million at the Flint plant to further increase 1.4-liter engine production capacity.



In May 2011, the carmaker again raised its production targets. By mid June production was halted for about one month at the Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly plant to complete some upgrades, including the installation of new tooling, equipment and overhead conveyor systems throughout the facility. These upgrades allowed to triple the rate of Volt production and prepared the plant for 2012 Volt and Ampera production.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Now you are purposely muddling the water by trying to convince your readers that "recall" means that the vehicle was not sold or still is in circulation. OMG. Do you think people on ATS are that stupid, and this will buy them into your political agenda?

Every car maker issues recalls, sometimes there are pretty massive. It involves a fix at the dealership, of varying complexity. Most the newer cars I own went through a few of this, be it a break light switch to gas level indicator. And you are trying to make it appear that the Volt did not sell at all?

Sheesh.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Second, the article contains a conjecture that a joint venture may eventually lead to production in China, and nothing concrete. Third, I clicked on the source quoted on Yahoo and immediately overdosed on Glen Becks photos. Bleh.


What if you ignored the messenger, and paid attention to the message?
Would that make your tummy all better?

It certainly won't help your surrender of common sense to a "progressive" mindset and agenda:

www.nytimes.com...

articles.latimes.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

How's that for a sampling of the reality of the situation, from progressives?

jw

edit on 6-1-2012 by jdub297 because: sp



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That's nice and all.

But..........................What is the point?

Please, stay on topic.
It appears that GM is vying for a move to China.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by jdub297
 


Now you are purposely muddling the water by trying to convince your readers that "recall" means that the vehicle was not sold or still is in circulation. OMG. Do you think people on ATS are that stupid, and this will buy them into your political agenda?


Apparently, the NHTSA allows GM to avoid using "recall" to protect its image in the market.



General Motors is advising Volt owners to return their electric cars to dealers for repairs that will lower the risk of battery fires. Eligible for the free repairs, announced Thursday, are 8,000 Volts on U.S. roads and another 4,400 still for sale

NHTSA critics have accused the agency of going easy on GM because the government still owns 26.5 percent of the company’s shares and the Obama administration has urged more sales of electric cars to end U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

NHTSA agreed to allow “safety campaigns” instead of recalls in the 1990s under pressure from the auto industry, Ditlow said. There is little difference between the two other than that NHTSA monitors recalls and makes sure more owners take their cars to dealers to have the repairs made, he says. “Safety campaigns are a kinder, gentler form of a recall,” he says. “It’s trying to put a good name on a safety recall.”

GM nearly ran out of cash and needed a $49.5 billion government bailout to survive bankruptcy protection in 2009.

GM sold 7,671 Volts last year, falling short of its goal of 10,000. Its main competitor, Nissan’s Leaf, sold 9,674. The Volt had its best month ever in December with 1,529 sales, but a GM executive conceded this week that the battery fires may have affected sales.

At first, GM blamed NHTSA for the June fire, saying it should have drained the battery to prevent any fires after the test. But the company quickly retreated and said it never told NHTSA to drain the battery. GM executives also said there was no formal procedure in place to drain batteries after crashes involving owners.

In December, GM CEO Dan Akerson said the company would buy back Volts from any owner who wasn’t satisfied.

So far, about 250 of the owners have asked for a loaner or a buyback.

fuelfix.com...

After bailing them out, buying a quarter of their stock at an inflated price, giving tax-payer funded technology to China, and letting GM avoid an official "recall," I'm not sure this was such a good idea anymore.

jw

edit on 6-1-2012 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That's nice and all.

But..........................What is the point?

Please, stay on topic.
It appears that GM is vying for a move to China.


Wait... The topic is the "$250,000 per vehicle" government spending which I showed was totally bogus and a product of deliberate misrepresentation, in an effort to score ideological points. That's the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss the nature of the agreement between GM and its Chinese counterparts (which so far does not include any manufacturing on Chinese soil), feel free to start a different thread. And talk about what appears and what does not appear.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Wait... The topic is the "$250,000 per vehicle" government spending which I showed was totally bogus and a product of deliberate misrepresentation, in an effort to score ideological points. That's the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss the nature of the agreement between GM and its Chinese counterparts (which so far does not include any manufacturing on Chinese soil), feel free to start a different thread. And talk about what appears and what does not appear.


Your reliance on "The Street" and others' "analyses" is inherently flawed and debunks nothing so much as the false optimism that supports imaginary jobs, sales and costs attributable to the entire "green" ideology.

First, let's just toss yours and GM's "projections" as nothing more than hype and wishful thinking.
GM and the Obama administration "projected" 10K in sales from Dec. to Dec., and that was missed by a long shot.
40K sold by 2013? Only if Obama's "jobs czar" Jeff Immelt and GE step in and buy up unsold inventory for fleet sales (which are "loss-leaders" at best).
There is now a "kinder,gentler" recall for all 7,671 of the Volts actually sold (with millions in taxpayer support).

At present, the numbers are correct per Volt.

That number is subject to change IF/AS more units are sold.

Given the reality of GM's economic viability, capitalization, and plans for Chinese production, this may be the last year for the Volt as we know it. (It is difficult to produce 600 units per month and lose money on each unit.)

Somewhere there is a logical breaking point, although some are blind to logic in the face of progressive glory and redistributionist omnipotence.

The defense of the Volt is clearly more overwrought than the original study.

While factories can be useful for 25 years, selling 7,671 Volts the first year (less the 250+ "buybacks" so far, and the 100% recall), does not augur well for their BEING a second year, much less a 25th.

The CURRENT subsidy is based on the current number that have been sold.

Of course that will go down if/as more are sold. What's the "flaw" here? At this point, it looks like $256K per car in taxpayer money.

It is just what it is. Railing against reality so feebly is what is absurd.
How sad.

jw
edit on 6-1-2012 by jdub297 because: sp



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join