• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    President Obama’s Proposed Budget Includes An Increase In The Tax Credit For Plug-Ins


    William Maley

    Editor/Reporter - CheersandGears.com

    February 16, 2012

    President Obama has a goal of getting a million plug-in vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015. Last year during his State of the Union address, Obama talked about changing the current $7,500 tax credit into a point-of-purchase rebate. That hasn’t happen at the moment, but in the President's proposed budget that was released this week, Obama is trying another way to reach his goal; raising the tax credit to $10,000.

    To go along with this push, the budget calls for cutting more subsidies that Big Oil currently enjoys.

    Opponents of the President disagree with this move, calling it a "campaign document" that would divide America. Others have pushed the PHEV credit to be removed.

    Source: Washington Post

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    Boy this will truly be a battle of those with interest in big oil and those that hug their trees pushing for this.

    Course Big Oil has a right to be afraid as this country goes towards plug in auto's / hybrids that sip fuel, their sales and profits could faulter.

    I do think raising the tax credit would help to sell these types of vehicles and there should e a credit for gas companies to install other types of pumps, Natural Gas pump, Propane pumps, biofuel pumps, etc.

    This way business can expand and support alternative fuels and keep their business going as we change direction on what fuels our love affair with the auto.

    Just think, a natural gas or propane powered turbine Hybrid!!!

    :metal:

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Fact is that any incentives come out of my taxes. And, I don't want to pay higher taxes so somebody can buy a plug-in vehicle for $7500 less. I don't want to pay higher taxes to subsidize "green and expensive" energy or companies feeding off public subsidies in their production either.

    One more reason to not only not vote for this guy, but spend some time convincing my friends, colleagues and family members to vote out this socialist regime.

    3

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    And the shrill morons that call themselves 'conservative' and 'fiscally responsible' will hammer away at this little subsidy whilst ignoring big-corn which is making us fat, and big-oil which is ruining our health and planet.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    i agree Dwight. more reason why we won't end these deficits anytime soon unless the mentality of our elected changes...(probably requires a wide sweeping out of ~90% of them already there)

    3

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I have no problems with companies wanting to market "green" products or people wanting to buy them. I do however have a problem government taking money from me to subsidize such transactions. I have never supported corn or ethanol subsidies either. I have no problems with anyone wanting to have solar panels on their roof or drive an electric car, but I don't want a portion of my taxes to be given to that person or the company selling solar products. Let the free market decide when alternatives to fossil fuel make economic sense and when transitions away from fossil fuel occurs. For now, fossil fuel is the cheapest, most available and most reliable source of energy anf we should continue to use it to the fullest until the market determines otherwise. I'll rather have that subsidy go towards a tax cut or paying down the nation debt. I don't want "green" and exhorbitant energy, I am interested in cheap and plentiful energy. To that end, we should allow oil, gas and coal to be vigorously explored and extracted within the USA.

    I do not believe in the Global Warming Hypothesis because the "science" doesn't add up. It doesn't add up because there is nothing unusual with the climate fluctuations we saw over the last 200 years -- they are perfectly within statistical norm for interglacial periods in the planet's history. It doesn't add up because there was no statistically significant colleration between temperatures and CO2 concentrations in the post industrial period. Fact is that CO2 s a trace gas in the terran atmosphere and 95% of of the green house effect is from water vapor, whereas CO2 and other "green houses gases combined accounts for the remaining 5%. Furthermore, androgyneous CO2 accounts only for a minority fraction of atmospheric CO2 and most practical purpose is inconsequential. For example, global temperatures fell precipitously from the late-40s to the 70s despite a continuous increase in CO2 concentrations in the air. Finally, global temperatures have been falling not increasing since 2007. It's pretty simple... there isn't enough solid, liquid or gaseous fossil fuel on earth for their consumption to significantly or permanently affect the global climate, hence there should be no actions to regulate or reduce CO2 emissions.

    This doesn't mean I am opposed to alternative energy per say. Fossil fuel is after all finite and will be sufficiently scarce to be uncomfortably expensive within the next 100 years. There will be a transition to something else. But that something else -- I assure you -- will not be wind or solar simply because these cannot generate enough power to provide more than 10~20% of mankind's total energy needs -- there isn't enough windy areas or enough practical real estate for solar collection. These also cannot generate power on demand with complete independence from time of day or the weather. As such, there is only one plausible energy future -- Nuclear. This is why I am opposed to all the green energy initiatives; they are a complete waste of tax dollars to chase after the wrong ball. Instead, we should be focusing on nuclear power generation, upgrading the electrical grid to facilitate distribution and making the diplomatic and military investments to ensure that be can secure access to Uranium and Plutonium 50~100 years from now. Signing a strong mutual defense and fissile materials supply treaty with Australia will be a start. Reinitiaiting rare earth metals exploration and mining in the USA will be another.

    4

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    We could cut our debt and cost greatly by making one large change.

    Stop the 1.5 trillion a year spent on rent to other counteries for letting us have a military base and the cost associated with hosting soldiers there.

    Just like Global warming, there is NO SOLID FACTS that support the US being the World Police Force.

    We could pay down debt and focus on rebuilding our own infastructure.

    Bring the troops home and post them on the boarders with orders to shoot to kill anyone trying to sneak across. End result is a large drop in smuggling of drugs, illegals and all other forms of criminal activity. BENEFIT - Safe country and secure boarders.

    Close all overseas military bases, BENEFIT - considerably lower costs to the tax payers, smaller military and funds to focus on core infastrucure needs such as rebuilding our roads better, mass transit, clean water, Power grid, etc. This on top of focusing on growing our education system to be the best in the world again.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, I think you have your numbers confused... The US tax revenue is about 2.3 trillion about 17~18% of GDP. The US Defense Budget is ~$680 billion. And, no, we are not spending $1.5 trilion of leases for foreign military bases. I don't have initmate knowledge of that expenditure, but 1.5 billion is more plausible.

    Do you really want to know where I stand politically? Well in Dwight's vision or America we'll have an 16% flat tax, federal spending capped at 15% of GDP with no deficit and borrowing allowed, a 20% reduction in government headcount over the next 10 years will be pursued. I'll phase out Social Security and Medicare over a 50 year period, transitioning to individual retirement saving accounts and a market based heatlhcare system focused on reducing the cost of care not trying to find one group to pick up the tab for another. Wellfare will be minimal and shameful on recipients. I'll not make tax payers pay for the investmen decisions of banks, companies or home owners. Green Energy Initiatives will end and we'll have domestic coal-oii-gas exploitation. A national right to work law will be passed and unions will no longer be able to compell membership or dues as a condition for employment. Education will be completely privatized. Wearing seat belts and helmets will be a decision that is left entirely up to the invidividual. And, yes, every adult that is not a felon, mentally diesease or handicapped will be required to own a firearm and may carry one concealed in public places should they elect to do so. Anyone unable to afford a gun will be issued a sidearm from military surplus stocks.

    And, yes, I'll reduce the size of the US military to roughly 75% its current size and realign it to be able fight and win massive, traditional conflict. We don't need counter insurgency capabilties, all we need to for the world to know that we are willing to employ war in the traditional fashion if they decide to antagonize us. By traditional, I mean WWII style traditional -- if we go to war it will be total war with the total destruction and/or unconditional surrender of the enemy being the only acceptable outcome.

    For the likes of Iran I'll televise a very simple message:-

    "To the government and citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States of America brings you this message. The United States has decided that we cannot tolerate the existence of a Nuclear Armed Iran. This decision is not open to negotiation or discussion. We will no longer try to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear materials or refining nuclear fuel. However, if Iran is to assemble and test a nuclear weapon, the following sequence of events will occur. We will verify, beyond a reasonable doubt, the occurence of such a test with all available space, aerial and human intelligence. Upon such a verification an executive order will be issued. Somewhere in the world's oceans, a US Navy Ohio class ballistic missile submarine will receive her orders. 24 Trident II D5 missiles will leave her launch tubes and within 30 minutes, 96 475 kiloton W88 warheads will denoted on all military and population centers within the borders of your nation. Iran will cease to exist as nation and as a habitable plot of land. The human carnage will be horrifying, the environmental toll will be considerable and history will weep her saddest tears. But this outcome is as completely preventable as it will be inevitable. The choice is yours. So you do what you have to do and we'll do what we have to do. May God bless America and have mercy on all our souls."

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If one looks at the facts of all defense/military spending, the budget for this year is estimated to be down to 1.415 trillion.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

    The Estimated outlay for OverSeas Military Bases is $250 Billion.

    http://www.fpif.org/reports/the_cost_of_the_global_us_military_presence

    Right here is $250 Billion that can go to strengthan this country and help rebuild the infastructure compaired to putting it in other counteries pockets.

    List of all the bases

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

    Great review of "Cost of an Empire, Can we really afford 1000 bases?"

    http://www.alternet.org/world/130900/the_costs_of_empire:_can_we_really_afford_1,000_overseas_bases/

    Enjoy, :)

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor