Government-subsidized GE to buy government-mandated car from government-owned GM with government-confiscated money

by editor on November 17, 2010

Just when you thought that Government Motors had really stepped in it by developing an electric car that no one wanted, an unlikely white knight has charged in to save the day.

chevrolet-volt

The Chevy Volt: Your tax dollars at work

CNN has graciously provided at least some of the details:

GE said Thursday it will buy 25,000 electric vehicles for its fleet through 2015 in the largest-ever purchase of electric cars.

GE will begin with an initial purchase of 12,000 vehicles from General Motor Co., starting with Chevy Volt in 2011. The conglomerate said it “will add other vehicles as manufacturers expand their electric vehicle profiles.”

Unfortunately, we don’t have one of those handy Glenn Beck chalkboards, but please stick with us as do our best to explain this situation.

Corporation A (let’s say General Electric) heavily invests in green technology that no one wants. When this tech fails to generate revenue adequate to bankroll its own existence, stimulus funds are provided to help keep the company afloat.

Corporation B (let’s say General Motors) is effectively taken over by the government. At the government’s direction, an electric car is designed and manufactured. Although it is touted as an innovation in green technology, no one wants it.

Corporation A, which is awash with taxpayer stimulus cash, promises to buy at least 25,000 of these cars from Corporation B, which is awash in government ownership. The sticker price is $41,000 per unit, although it is possible that Corporation A will get a handsome quantity discount from Corporation B.

Simultaneously, congress is pursuing legislation that will force consumers to use green tech. The same sort that Corporation A is so heavily invested in.

Surprisingly, this story was not reported by Corporation A-owned MSNBC.

Source: CNN.com

32
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
7 Comment threads
25 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
DebdanybhoyGrammar FuhrerKip HookerJim Stewart Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Grammar Fuhrer
Member
Grammar Fuhrer

Step 1: Create green tech necessary for green cars
Step 2: Create green cars using green tech
Step 3: Try to sell green cars to general public
Step 4: Fail
Step 5: Sell green cars to green tech company
Step 6: ????
Step 7: PROFIT!!!

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy

Or have 1 bailed out company buy products from another bailed out company, & then those workers who work for those bailed out companies will give political donations to the Dems who pushed hard for the bailouts to begin with.

This whole thing smells bad, & it should’nt be allowed to happen.

Liberalism:Ideas so good they need to be madatory.
Andrew Wilkow

donavandean
Member
donavandean

actually a very similar scenario was done by eisenhower (a republican president) in the 40’s, which saved GM and GM rose from that to become the largest automaker in the world for decades. oddly no one called it fascism back then…when we were actually at war with a fascist country.

YT
Member
YT

You’re thinking of FDR. And many of his little escapades were called fascism and unconstitutional by critics and by the US supreme court.

Did you ever read this article I recommended to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Print it out and read it out loud while standing in front of a mirror.

donavandean
Member
donavandean

type-o…sorry.

donavandean
Member
donavandean

you’re right, i am thinking of FDR in the 40’s who started GM’s close relationship with the governmont. i guess the morale of the story is, that it worked and FDR was anything but fascist… which again has conservatives on the wrong side of history. however that said, the eisenhower administration greatly expanded contracting with GM, under the guise of nixon. i got my presidents crossed…

YT
Member
YT

I see you had to go to wikipedia for a few minutes to get your facts right. How is disagreeing with FDR on the wrong side of history? He was a fascist. He tried more things to get private businesses and the government interwinded than anyone in the country’s history. Thats what fascism is to but it briefly.And how has that worked out? A big, crappy car company that needs continual help from the taxpayer because nobody will buy their overpriced cars on their own.I suppose that is the definition of succesful in lefty-world.

Kip Hooker
Guest

Spot on. I know other’s have mentioned it here before but I really think that WW2 saved us from the fascism of FDR just as much as it saved us from the variety brewing over in Europe.

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose

The war ( I am making the jump that you meant WW2) was over years before Eisenhower became president. And he was elected in mmmmm 1953 I believe.

jukin
Guest
jukin

Mussolini would call this fascism or as he liked to called it government corporatism. Since he fathered it I will assume him to be the expert.

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy

That is correct, but those who support this crap would never admit it.

Liberalism:Ideas so good they need to be mandatory.
Andrew Wilkow

Kip Hooker
Guest

Very astute. This is exactly the type of socialism that was employed by the fascists of the early twentieth century.

perlcat
Member

A sh*t sandwich.

Seriously intended for your consumption, but you still don’t want it.

trackback
rs
Member

And the libs talked about “voodoo economics” when they described Reagan’s policies. What the hell do they call this?

donavandean
Member
donavandean

“voodoo economics” was actually coined by goerge bush 1 when referring to reagans policy…

donavandean
Member
donavandean

the reason “voodoo economics” was coined by bush 1, was because reagan’s policies put us in a deep recession and he ran up the national debt more than all presidents combined before him—thought i should set the record straight. so, its not liberals who coined the term or even used the term, it was conservatives and it was commonly used during bush 1 speeches when he was running for president.

perlcat
Member

Actually, Bush’s using the term ‘voodoo economics’ was just an age-old extension of the old “denigrate that what you don’t understand” for political advantage.

Any more, we’d call what he tried an “underpants gnome” strategy. You know,
Phase I: Collect underpants.
Phase II: ?
Phase III: Profit.

Given that Bush Sr. had his own agenda, adopting his arguments carries a credibility hit for Democrats, who clearly weren’t too proud to use his mischaracterization. His plan for the economy was basically no plan at all, so the UPG slam fits here. Both parties are guilty of enriching the rich at the expense of their country — and both are severely harming our freedom and civil liberties.

Do I think that “trickle down” or “supply side” economics works everywhere in all cases? Nope. I think that after generations of bad fiscal policy that nearly all results in the accrual of wealth to the financial world, anything that modifies that equation has a good chance of making it “less bad”, and the economy responds.

There is a reason we went off the gold standard, and it has nothing to do with good fiscal policy. It moved the levers of power off to the side and out of sight. A true understanding of monetary policy is a mind-blowing experience, complete with multiple layers of obfuscation and misdirection.

donavandean
Member
donavandean

thanks pericat, but i was setting the record straight for Ray, who asked why liberals call reagan’s policies “voodoo economics”. which comes from bush 1, not liberals.

that said, i mostly agree with your assessment on our national and actually global economy. there are a handful who control our economy/ies. i do have to say that the current state of our economy is a clear indicator of how trickle-down has failed. never in the history of our country have corporations seen such profits, during a time of great unemployment. many say corporations are not spending because they’re uncertain of our governments policies… not true…they own our government, they lobbied for it, paid for it and all the policies in place are policies they help write. never, in our modern history have we seen such a disparity between the very rich and the poor. in my opinion, trickle-down does not work. additionally, if we head into another recession, which is possible it gives corporations the ability to buy back much of their stock at a lower price and also acquire other companies at a lower price. they need to stay as liquid as possible, because they’re hoping/predicting another recession.

perlcat
Member

I’d say that rather than just draw the line at saying the economy sucks because trickle down failed, I’d say it is more a case of “the economy and our monetary system is so FUBAR that any change at all gets results of some sort or another, and results in benefits for one significant proportion of the population at the clear expense of another, causing endless bickering and the near-perpetual deferment of any chance of an actual solution.”

People spend so much time arguing about trickle down and all the other band-aids, that they spend absolutely none wondering why we have what we have. I think US politics is more like what Douglas Adams described — the real power wants a controversial president, so that people focus on him/her/it. Until the focus changes to the source of the problem, all’s we are doing is debating individual premises on an argument that is totally invalid.

Do I think the corporations benefiting from monetary policy at one point or another are the cause? Doubt it. It’s cronyism, simple misdirection, or an incidental benefit that goes to an unloveable group, causing more discord.

I’d say that this week’s OOTS pretty well explains it. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html

YT
Member
YT

“Phase I: Collect underpants.
Phase II: ?
Phase III: Profit.

Weird, I think thats GMs new business strategy as well. Just replace underpants with congressmen.

perlcat
Member

I’m not replacing *my* underpants with congressmen.

You can go first, tell us how it works out.

Jim Stewart
Member
Jim Stewart

donavan – Reagan’s tax rate cuts nearly doubled the revenue to the federal government. Revenue went from $517 billion in 1982 to $909 billion in 1988. Federal tax rate cuts increase revenue every time they have been tried. The problem is that government can spend money faster.

Kip Hooker
Guest

George Bush used the term “voodoo economics” and liberals used the term “voodoo economics”. But I repeat myself.

Kip Hooker
Guest

Michael Savage calls it trickle up poverty. I just call it being trickled on.

trackback

[…] Yes, the link is here. Tweet Categories: Current Events Tags: Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback […]