Barrack Hussein has also just mandated that all employees of GE drive Chevy colts. The Volt is now a required replacement for their current sedans, crossovers, and minivans. Only field engineers are exempt from having to drive a volt.

Looks like you guys have your own Volkswagen now. Just another step closer to full blown socialism.

http://gas2.org/2012/02/20/...es-into-chevy-volts/

And for reference, an article on Barrack's German counterpart and his relationship with VW.

http://www.minyanville.com/...r/4/13/2010/id/27654

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 02-23-2012).]

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: Barrack Hussein has also just mandated that all employees of GE drive Chevy colts. The Volt is now a required replacement for their current sedans, crossovers, and minivans. Only field engineers are exempt from having to drive a volt . . .

Looks like the directive came down from GE's top exec Jeff Immelt. Not President Obama.

Remember, this is General Electric that we're talking about--not General Motors (GM).

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Looks like the directive came down from GE's top exec Jeff Immelt. Not President Obama. Remember, this is General Electric that we're talking about--not General Motors (GM).

Immelt is one of Obama's appointed "czars". He was chosen to head Obama's economic recovery plan, even though his company, GE, had just shuttered thousands of jobs overseas to China. GE is just as much an arm to Obama as is his personal car company, GM.

http://www.ceo-watch.com/ce...b-czar-27201110.html

Immelt was also one of the individuals who advised Obama to up the subsidies for electric cars. Very convenient for his company, no? Now Obama just has to make sure gas prices go through the roof and he is one step closer of ramming his electric car down the peoples throats.

[This message has been edited by loafer87gt (edited 02-23-2012).]

Come see the new 2012 Voltswagen.

Maybe theyll bring back the Buick Electra too....lol.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: It's goals, i.e., reducing national oil consumption, which I think is a fairly level-headed goal to make. Having your transportation needs of the entire country dependent on a hugely volatile commodity doesn't seem like a wise decision. I do agree though that we should be exploiting more of our own oil resources.

Reducing national oil consumption is a laudable goal. We even do it on a personal level. The means to the end is the question. Your original argument for subsidies was that they were needed to develop existing technology. Something usually done in laboratories or universities. To mandate an unproven inefficient way is not right.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: The costs associated with cleaning up pipeline breaks or oil spills can be quantified to some extent. I'm pretty sure wood spills don't cause environmental disasters.

Wood spills ? Formula88 mentioned deforestation. They also raze wooded lots to build homes on, affecting wildlife and aesthetics. There are other considerations, none of which are artificially factored into the cost of a home. The cost of the Gulf oil spill were paid for by BP, the responsible party.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: The people do. You're argument would hold water if EVs were to exist, subsidized, forever. My entire point was that subsidizing EVs initially to help them get over the expense of bringing new technology to market. If the market truly does not want EVs, people still won't buy.

Again, laboratories and universities, and ingenious individuals bring new technologies to fruition. The market won't want them unless it is better and cheaper than what we have a choice for now. The fact that the market, us taxpayers, is mandated to pay to develop technology which may not be economically feasible is wrong. Especially technology which many will not want (commuter car with a thirty mile range, requiring a eight hour refuel).

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: True, on a 49 hp 3-cylinder, 1.0L engine, with essentially no safety features or creature comforts. Not really comparable to a new vehicle. And besides, it's rated at 26/31 mpg with the automatic transmission (look it up at www.fueleconomy.gov) -- Not exactly stellar.

Mine was a five speed, air conditioned. It had air bags, at least a driver's side, I think, . Creature comforts ? We are talking about saving the nation here, . Sacrificing is proven technology.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Zillions? If that's true, then yeah -- sounds like a waste.

Well, zillions was a stretch but the thousands spent here was a waste. It's not like the country has seen a rash of cyclists deaths. I don't think I have ever seen a bicycle in one of those lanes, yet now oncoming cars are squeezed closer together.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Operating expense is the cost after purchase. I'm making the argument that purchase price will come down to a level comparable with ICE-powered cars once they become mass produced. The day-to-day expense of running an EV is far lower than a conventional vehicle ON AVERAGE using average electric rates and gasoline prices.

True, we are not going to add 300 million EV's on the road. A reach on my part though many of us have more than one car. However, in arguing day-to-day expenses of operating an EV compared to a conventional internal combustion engine powered car, perhaps you forgot this ... :


If this mandating monkey of a government keeps getting it's way, how much longer will an EV make economical sense ? We the forum have beat this electric car idea to death. One person, I forget who, who probably got tired of posting his fact(?), states that unless the second law of thermal dynamics gets repealed, unpossible, that an electric vehicle will never make sense. I am not smart enough to argue the laws of physics but I have heard that the internal combustion engine gives us the best bang for the buck. Even at inefficient as it is. We are the Saudia Arabia of natural gas. Where is the mandate to develop that technology ?

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 02-24-2012).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: We are the Saudia Arabia of natural gas. Where is the mandate to develop that technology ?

There isn't one, Cliff. Natural gas as fuel isn't much different from gasoline as fuel. There isn't any need for government involvement there, so Obama doesn't care about that. He is about control, nothing else.

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: Barrack Hussein has also just mandated that all employees of GE drive Chevy colts. The Volt is now a required replacement for their current sedans, crossovers, and minivans. Only field engineers are exempt from having to drive a volt. Looks like you guys have your own Volkswagen now. Just another step closer to full blown socialism.

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: Immelt is one of Obama's appointed "czars". He was chosen to head Obama's economic recovery plan, even though his company, GE (General [b]Electric), had just shuttered thousands of jobs overseas to China. GE is just as much an arm to Obama as is his personal car company, GM. Very convenient for his company, no?

Good post but you "missed it by that much" (an iconic quote from "Get Smart", an old TV show). He is now mandating that we pay for them and even some states, such a Kaliforinia, mandate that so many must be sold to the public.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: If this mandating monkey of a government keeps getting it's way, how much longer will an EV make economical sense ? We the forum have beat this electric car idea to death. One person, I forget who, who probably got tired of posting his fact(?), states that unless the second law of thermal dynamics gets repealed, unpossible, that an electric vehicle will never make sense. I am not smart enough to argue the laws of physics but I have heard that the internal combustion engine gives us the best bang for the buck. Even at inefficient as it is. We are the Saudia Arabia of natural gas. Where is the mandate to develop that technology ?

Not sure what you mean by "how much longer will an EV make economical sense". I don't know why the second law of thermodynamics would make EVs impossible, the current limiting factor is battery technology - costs are too high, and capacities are too low. But saying it's impossible to design a better battery is pretty naive. In fact, I would argue the opposite - that laws of conservation mean EVs will always be much more efficient. (a car powered by chemical energy, IE fuel, suffers losses whenever the brakes are used, since the brakes dissipate that energy as heat and is not recoverable. An EV can recover much of that energy through regenerative braking.)

quote Especially technology which many will not want (commuter car with a thirty mile range, requiring a eight hour refuel).

Ahhh come on cliff, that's just silly. Either you won't require a 8 hour refuel (think Volt with range extension) or you will have more than 30 miles or range (think Focus EV with 100 mile range). You're right, nobody would want a pure EV with 30 miles of range, but nobody is even trying to market one.

We have definitely beaten this issue to death...I'm going to have to agree to disagree and let it go.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: You're right, nobody would want a pure EV with 30 miles of range, but nobody is even trying to market one.

Historical amnesia again?
http://www.nissanusa.com/le...#/leaf-electric-car/

Although, to be fair, Nissan says the Leaf will go about 60-70 miles on a full charge for most typical types of driving. (they also claim up to a maximum of 138 miles, at a constant 38mph on a 68° day with the climate control turned off) And only $35,000!! Better get one while the government is offering $7500 tax credits. That makes the little car *only* $27,500!

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 02-24-2012).]

That is laughable, 38 mph.....seriously. The only place around here you go that is thru school zones. Even the freeways around here posted for 65, is a joke. almost everyone is going over 75-80. They just passed a law allowing 70. LOL. That just means theyll move up to 85-90 which a lot already do. If you drive 55 in a 55 zone in town, you will get run over or rear ended.

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: Barrack Hussein has also just mandated that all employees of GE drive Chevy colts. The Volt is now a required replacement for their current sedans, crossovers, and minivans. Only field engineers are exempt from having to drive a company volt. Looks like you guys have your own Volkswagen now. Just another step closer to full blown socialism. http://gas2.org/2012/02/20/...es-into-chevy-volts/ And for reference, an article on Barrack's German counterpart and his relationship with VW. http://www.minyanville.com/...r/4/13/2010/id/27654

I liked how you conveniently left out the word "company".

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Historical amnesia again? Although, to be fair, Nissan says the Leaf will go about 60-70 miles on a full charge

Cliff says that nobody would want a 30-mile range EV.

I said "You're right, nobody would want a pure EV with 30 miles of range, but nobody is even trying to market one."

And you say I have historical amnesia because...Nissan makes an EV with 60-70 miles of range? What is your point exactly?

[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 02-24-2012).]

quote Originally posted by heybjorn:

Have you no shame ?
"The Pinto, the Vega, the Fiero, the Volt".
"I understand these things catch on fire ...".
A plus to 'ya to try to offset the "speed ban".

Obama proposes bumping Chevy Volt subsidy up to $10K
http://dailycaller.com/2012...t-subsidy-up-to-10k/

quote President Barack Obama is touting a new series of green-tech subsidies in North Carolina Wednesday, simultaneously trying to goose his prospects in the swing-state and to jump-start his stalled plan to minimize the nation’s use of gasoline. The new subsidies include an expansion of the $7,500 subsidy for the wealthy buyers of the Chevy Volt. If Congress approves Obama’s proposal, the government will be giving $10,000 in taxpayer money to people wealthy enough to buy novel green-tech autos that are powered by batteries or natural-gas. The new $10,000 credit, according to a White House statement, should “be applied to additional types of technologies, not currently covered.” The average household income of Chevy Volt buyers is $170,000. White House officials did not estimate the total cost to taxpayers of the proposed subsidy, which will also be given by buyers of commercial trucks. Obama also announced a new tax break to spur purchase of trucks powered by natural gas when he visits a factory run by Daimler Trucks North America in Mt. Holly, N.C. “This incentive… drive[s] up demand for the sorts of vehicles built at Freightliner’s Mt. Holly Plant and, in turn, spur[s] job creation in the American manufacturing sector,” said a press release. The visit and the subsidies may help Obama gain ground in North Carolina, which he won by 0.3 percent in 2008. However, his poll numbers in the state remain well below 50 percent, and the state party is in disarray because three top Democrats — including Gov. Bev Perdue — have announced they will not run in 2012. His efforts to launch a new, post-gasoline energy sector have stalled, in part, because several taxpayer-funded green-tech companies have collapsed. Several others have laid off workers. (RELATED: Bankrupt energy firms get millions in tax dollars, execs receive large payouts) This month, General Motors announced a temporary halt to production of the Chevy Volt after disappointing sales. White House spokesman Jay Carney ignored the production halt when asked by reporters about the subsidy while en-route to North Carolina “It is simply a fact that these technologies are going to be developed somewhere, and where they are developed there will be good jobs associated with the development of those technologies,” Carney said. “The President is absolutely committed… to ensuring that we do not, in the United States of America, simply throw up our hands and cede the industries of the future to other countries.” Also, green-tech investors are increasingly cautious, fearing that an Obama defeat in 2012 would end subsidies and wipe out their prospects for profit. (SEE ALSO: GM suspends production of Chevy Volt after disappointing sales) Obama’s promised subsidy for the trucks may not be needed. That’s because an increasing number of trucking companies are already looking to use natural gas because it is a cheaper fuel than gasoline. The low price is caused by energy companies’ “fracking” technology that has unlocked vast quantities of natural gas across the United States. Natural gas prices are so low that the new fuel has jump-started growth in the nation’s manufacturing sector and forced the shutdown of older, less-efficient natural gas wells.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Obama proposes bumping Chevy Volt subsidy up to $10K http://dailycaller.com/2012...t-subsidy-up-to-10k/

Why not bump the subsidy up to $40k and give the cars away? It's only tax money. It's not like "real" money.

hold up on that car wash, anointed one.

http://www.dailytech.com/Af...all/article23684.htm

I'll be there with a camera when they crush the Volt like the EV-1 was.

The Trabant for the people, down in flames.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Why not bump the subsidy up to $40k and give the cars away? It's only tax money. It's not like "real" money.

All they'd relaly have to do is have Brad Pitt, Oprah and the Kardashians drive one, all the housewives would want one.

DOH! hope I didn't give them ideas.

Thats really going to help the economy. Throw even more money away on a proven waste product. With all the rich people buying them, does he really think they worry about getting a $10K break. Celebrities will buy them to look good, drive it around the corner out of sight, and switch over to the real car they left their earlier...like a Mercedes Maybach.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Thats really going to help the economy. Throw even more money away on a proven waste product. With all the rich people buying them, does he really think they worry about getting a $10K break. Celebrities will buy them to look good, drive it around the corner out of sight, and switch over to the real car they left their earlier...like a Mercedes Maybach.

You're missing the big picture. Every Volt sold is more money for the UAW owned Government Motors. The UAW will need that money to contribute to Obama's re-election campaign. So, don't think of it as subsidizing a car. Think of it as subsidizing the Obama campaign.

You know, we're all car guys here and all of us love our petroleum-based vehicles. But the simple fact of the matter is eventually we're going to have to give up what is now a $4.00+ per gallon indulgence. Is the present batch of alternatively fueled vehicles up to the task of the average driver, cost effective or technologically fault-free? Certainly not...HOWEVER, the evolution to vehicles that are those things has to start somewhere. Think of the first gasoline-powered cars and then look in your driveway. What we consider dinosaurs in a vehicular sense are still vastly superior to what we started out with 100 years ago. The path to an affordable, reliable and ecologically friendly means of personal transportation is sure to be a long one but any step is a step in the right direction."Dino oil" is unarguably a finite resource and we've got to as a nation not only accept that fact but initiate steps to combat the eventuality that it's gonna run out. Also, from the perspective of our national security, do we really want to continue funding some of the same countries that are directly involved in attempts to bring us to our knees economically?

Which is a better alternative? Increase subsidies to try to develop an alternative to the US reliance on primarily foreign oil OR continue to subsidize an oil industry that is not only making record profits but is also almost completely out of our immediate control? Even if we exploited every possible domestic avenue to oil exploration and released every drop from the Federal Oil Reserve, it still wouldn't offset the approximately 19 MILLION barrels per day we currently consume. Viewing the problem from the rather short-sighted perspective of who's presently occupying the White House is not IMO a realistic way of looking at what is unarguably a long-range problem, regardless of who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I fear the next major World War is going to be ignited by oil importation or a lack of same.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-09-2012).]

He gave GM a handout. Loan they dont have to pay back. Let them bring the price down on the car to a more realistic number...under $20K. Then when regular people start buying them, they might have something. It always makes more money in the end selling many of a product for a little than trying to recover your costs on just a few high priced ones. Even $1.00 a can soda is cheaper when you buy a 12 pack for $5.00. I quarantee the soda company is still making just as much money.

Last time I looked an econo box sells for $15,000. $20,000 for a futuristic electric car seems unobtainable to me.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Think of the first gasoline-powered cars and then look in your driveway. What we consider dinosaurs in a vehicular sense are still vastly superior to what we started out with 100 years ago.

Excellent comparison. Think of the taxpayer money that went into developing the first gasoline-powered cars, and then look at the Volt.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: The path to an affordable, reliable and ecologically friendly means of personal transportation is sure to be a long one but any step is a step in the right direction.

That kind of thinking is pure folly. Only a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction. Making a mistake just to be able to say you did something is *not* a step in the right direction. That's been the definition of Obama's economic policies. Pouring gasoline on a fire is a step, but it's not in the right direction. Well, unless your goal is to destroy everything you touch.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That kind of thinking is pure folly. Only a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction. Making a mistake just to be able to say you did something is *not* a step in the right direction. That's been the definition of Obama's economic policies. Pouring gasoline on a fire is a step, but it's not in the right direction. Well, unless your goal is to destroy everything you touch.

My purpose is not to debate Obama's transient economic policies but rather to discuss our national energy realities for the future. Even if he was to win a second term, our problem with oil consumption as it presently stands is much more long-term than that. How does one determine what step is in the right direction if no steps are undertaken at all?

New technologies do not usually appear in an intellectual vacuum. Can one garner information from mistakes made or should we do nothing in terms of research and development of new technologies until we are guaranteed nothing short of success? To adopt that as a benchmark would have negated every technological advance mankind has made since the beginning of scientific experimentation.....trial and error.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-09-2012).]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blott...st/story?id=15885837

Bad Karma?

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: My purpose is not to debate Obama's transient economic policies but rather to discuss our national energy realities for the future. Even if he was to win a second term, our problem with oil consumption as it presently stands is much more long-term than that. How does one determine what step is in the right direction if no steps are undertaken at all? New technologies do not usually appear in an intellectual vacuum. Can one garner information from mistakes made or should we do nothing in terms of research and development of new technologies until we are guaranteed nothing short of success? To adopt that as a benchmark would have negated every technological advance mankind has made since the beginning of scientific experimentation.....trial and error.

You're talking about all forms of innovation and equating that to government's role in funding said innovation.
Did government fund Henry Ford's invention of the assembly line?
Did Einstein develop his theory of Relativity as part of a government R&D program?

The question isn't just about what steps to take, but what steps government should be funding. The Volt would never have been built as it is were it not for government funding. Does that mean there would never be an electric car? No, look at Nissan's Leaf, the multitude of hybrids and Honda's hydrogen powered electric FCX. But the government funding created a need to invent a new way to do something. If the funding came from the corporation's own pocket, it would have been spent more carefully. We might not have had such a bold experiment as the Volt, but we might have had a successful hybrid similar to the Prius, or Ford Fusion Hybrid.

The urgency to 'to anything even if it's wrong' should be a red flag that you need to stop and figure out what to do before you try to figure out how to do it, let alone pay for it.

This is how alternative transportation innovation is done: http://www.arcimoto.com/ This, IMO, is a step in the right direction.
Is it as practical as a Volt? No. But it also will cost much less and I don't think they're using Billions of taxpayer dollars in R&D. All of the complaints about it are equally waived away by your comment about having to start somewhere and the technology improving over time.

The logic of your position overwhelms me.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 03-11-2012).]

I might have missed your point Formula....

'Excellent comparison. Think of the taxpayer money that went into developing the first gasoline-powered cars, and then look at the Volt. "

I dont think the government or taxpayers spent a dime inventing and perfecting the gas engine. It was people investing their own ideas and money.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: I might have missed your point Formula.... 'Excellent comparison. Think of the taxpayer money that went into developing the first gasoline-powered cars, and then look at the Volt. " I dont think the government or taxpayers spent a dime inventing and perfecting the gas engine. It was people investing their own ideas and money.

That was the point. Sarcasm doesn't translate very well to the written word.
Most of our great innovations weren't due to government spending. Sure, massive scale projects like the moon landings, interstate system, etc. do, but too often people get caught up in the idea that government must be the origin of innovation and creation, when more often than not, government stifles innovation and creation.

Maybe government should do something like the X-prize? Offer a prize to the first to release an alternative fuel vehicle that meets a set list of criteria. Then let everyone go for it.

"Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." - Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: I might have missed your point Formula.... 'Excellent comparison. Think of the taxpayer money that went into developing the first gasoline-powered cars, and then look at the Volt. " I dont think the government or taxpayers spent a dime inventing and perfecting the gas engine. It was people investing their own ideas and money.

A gravity fed one cylinder engine with no carburetor that is little more than a horseless carriage would be a snap to invent. The technology was so simple that prior to the Great Depression, there were hundreds of car manufacturers in the US. A car of the Volt's level of technology requires thousands of hours of leading edge engineering. To me, this is purely apples and oranges. As for "perfecting" the gasoline engine, we've been at it for over 100 years and less than 30 percent of the energy in a gallon of gasoline is actually converted into motion (whereas an electric motor is about 80% efficient); I hardly call that perfection. To expect the Volt to come out of the gate as the perfect electric/gasoline car is too optimistic when you consider how long we've been "perfecting" the traditional gas car. I doubt that you can point to a single auto manufacturer who hasn't received subsidies ( I'm currently subsidizing a Korean one (Kia/Hyundai) here in GA and having to buy my own copy machine paper for my classroom). Just because my tax money has gone to them, I'm not trying to get them to fail.

I'll argue give you that there isn't much of a business case for the current cars (Leaf too) at its price, but when gas is consistently above $5.00 a gallon or there's another gas shortage, I suspect they would sell all they could make. I still remember the gas lines of 1973, 1979, and after Katrina here in GA. The difference in price between the Vol/Leaf/Fiskar/Tesla will melt away when you have to pay over $100 to fill your tank, or you can't get gasoline. A hidden cost of gasoline is maintaining our military to protect our supply lines (and those of our allies); isn't this a huge (actually, I can't think of a bigger subsidy) hidden subsidy for all auto-makers? People trash Jimmy Carter, but had we stuck to our principals of energy independence that we embarked upon in the late 1970's(higher CAFE #'s instead of the bigger is better SUV craze), alternative fuels, clean energy, etc)? Importing oil is a no-win situation (except for the oil companies); maybe we need to subsidize bicycles instead.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Man, I was getting ready to agree with you, but now I'm wondering about your first sentence, "Most of our great innovations weren't due to government spending." Please name some as I'm curious which ones you have in mind. Either way, I agree with you on the rest of it.

Since this is a car forum, how about the automobile and assembly line?
Or the airplane? This one is a good example as there was a ton of government spending to create a powered heavier than air flyer. They failed. Two bicycle mechanics figured it out in a shed near the beach.
How much government money went into the iPod?
If you're a pilot, you'll appreciate Stefan Banic's invention, the parachute, which he donated the U.S. patent to the U.S. Army.
There are tons of inventions coming out all the time, many considered to be the best thing since sliced bread, which was invented in 1928 by Otto Frederick Rohwedder.

We do get a lot of inventions from government spending. Just the spinoffs from NASA space technology fill volumes, but most of them were private companies taking the technology created for the space program and finding new ways to use it. The magazine NASA Tech Briefs was created to help get new tech out of the hands of government and into the private sector where it can be better developed into new products.

You are bringing way too much logic into this discussion!

quote Originally posted by carnut122: A gravity fed one cylinder engine with no carburetor that is little more than a horseless carriage would be a snap to invent. The technology was so simple that prior to the Great Depression, there were hundreds of car manufacturers in the US. A car of the Volt's level of technology requires thousands of hours of leading edge engineering. To me, this is purely apples and oranges. As for "perfecting" the gasoline engine, we've been at it for over 100 years and less than 30 percent of the energy in a gallon of gasoline is actually converted into motion (whereas an electric motor is about 80% efficient); I hardly call that perfection. To expect the Volt to come out of the gate as the perfect electric/gasoline car is too optimistic when you consider how long we've been "perfecting" the traditional gas car. I doubt that you can point to a single auto manufacturer who hasn't received subsidies ( I'm currently subsidizing a Korean one (Kia/Hyundai) here in GA and having to buy my own copy machine paper for my classroom). Just because my tax money has gone to them, I'm not trying to get them to fail. I'll argue give you that there isn't much of a business case for the current cars (Leaf too) at its price, but when gas is consistently above $5.00 a gallon or there's another gas shortage, I suspect they would sell all they could make. I still remember the gas lines of 1973, 1979, and after Katrina here in GA. The difference in price between the Vol/Leaf/Fiskar/Tesla will melt away when you have to pay over $100 to fill your tank, or you can't get gasoline. A hidden cost of gasoline is maintaining our military to protect our supply lines (and those of our allies); isn't this a huge (actually, I can't think of a bigger subsidy) hidden subsidy for all auto-makers? People trash Jimmy Carter, but had we stuck to our principals of energy independence that we embarked upon in the late 1970's(higher CAFE #'s instead of the bigger is better SUV craze), alternative fuels, clean energy, etc)? Importing oil is a no-win situation (except for the oil companies); maybe we need to subsidize bicycles instead.

quote Originally posted by dratts: You are bringing way too much logic into this discussion!

quote Originally posted by Formula88: .....The magazine NASA Tech Briefs was created to help get new tech out of the hands of government and into the private sector where it can be better developed into new products.

Wait, let me get this straight, the government didn't productize inventions that came out of the space program, they made the technology available to our brightest and most creative citizens to FIND commercially viable uses for them which created jobs, tax revenue, growth, and new markets (expanding the 'pie' Keynesians deny is growable). And they DIDN'T just give piles of money instead of technology to hand selected private companies with the mission to "BE BRILLIANT" and invent something we neither want, nor need at the moment because the current administration thinks we should have it and LOST jobs, reduced tax reveune, and created negative growth?

hmmm, lemme see, A) giving technology made from common good programs like defense spending and space exploration to the private sector to productize worked. B) giving tax dollars and no technology to private companies and telling them to invent what you WANT invented doesn't work.

What to do? what to do?

Yep, logic is a B*****

Not too late to start making 2.5 manual Fieros again.. I get 41 mpg on the highway.. 1986 technology.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Since this is a car forum, how about the automobile and assembly line? Or the airplane? This one is a good example as there was a ton of government spending to create a powered heavier than air flyer. They failed. Two bicycle mechanics figured it out in a shed near the beach. How much government money went into the iPod? If you're a pilot, you'll appreciate Stefan Banic's invention, the parachute, which he donated the U.S. patent to the U.S. Army. There are tons of inventions coming out all the time, many considered to be the best thing since sliced bread, which was invented in 1928 by Otto Frederick Rohwedder. We do get a lot of inventions from government spending. Just the spinoffs from NASA space technology fill volumes, but most of them were private companies taking the technology created for the space program and finding new ways to use it. The magazine NASA Tech Briefs was created to help get new tech out of the hands of government and into the private sector where it can be better developed into new products.

I think you have a pretty good handle on it. You hit NASA which I was thinking of; other "subsidized" inventions stem from defense spending and government funded colleges and universities. I was just curious what you had in mind.