Labor Unions

The Build Back Better Bill Will Give You $12,000 for Buying an Electric Car. Unless It's a Tesla.

Only vehicles made in unionized U.S. factories qualify for the full amount.


On Friday, the House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act, President Joe Biden's signature legislation. Despite being much smaller than it was when initially proposed, the bill is still stuffed with Democratic wish list items, including policies on climate change, child care, family leave, and immigration. The bill is expected to face opposition, and likely some pruning, when it reaches the Senate. One proposal jumps out as an obvious contender for the chopping block.

As part of Biden's plan to rein in carbon emissions, the bill contains a provision which would provide a $7,500 tax rebate to any consumer who purchases an electric vehicle (EV), including both all-electric and plug-in hybrids. However, that amount increases by $4,500 if the car was manufactured in a unionized U.S. factory, as well as by an additional $500 if the vehicle contains a U.S.-made battery.

Ostensibly, this provision is part of Biden's "Buy American" policy of incentivizing or mandating purchases to be made domestically. In practice, the order has simply carried over the protectionism of the Trump trade policy and increased costs to taxpayers. The EV credit proposal, though, is much more egregious, in that it not only incentivizes a particular type of product, but incentivizes particular brands, as well.

If enacted as written, the bonus $4,500 in EV credits could only apply to cars made by Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler). In other words, a driver who wants to purchase a hybrid Toyota Camry, which U.S. News & World Report ranks as having "Great" reliability, does not qualify for the extra money, even though the car is manufactured in Kentucky. But if that same shopper elects to purchase a Chevrolet Bolt, which recently halted production because the batteries were catching fire, they would receive the extra rebate. As a matter of fact, out of more than 50 EVs currently on the market, the only vehicles which currently qualify for the extra money are two variations of the Bolt.

This is what is most pernicious about this policy: Rather than simply a blanket advantage for American companies (which would be bad enough), it is a clear giveaway to the United Auto Workers (UAW). In October, when Biden visited a UAW job training center, he bragged about the EV proposal, saying "I want those jobs here in Michigan"—rather than in states like Tennessee or Kentucky, where UAW membership is less of a certainty.

In fact, it is clear that the union aspect of the policy was more important than the actual consumer incentive. As The Wall Street Journal reported last week, Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), the provision's co-author, stated that he included the bonus funding after being advised by General Motors and UAW "about the importance of including an explicitly pro-union component."

As a means of lessening not only carbon emissions, but exhaust pollution, shifting to EVs is a perfectly laudable step (though by no means a silver bullet). But when the transition is accomplished by executive fiat rather than consumer choice or market incentive, it risks undermining the entire goal. And in this instance, customers are being nudged for political reasons: a kickback to a key constituency of Biden's party.

NEXT: Politicians On Left and Right Want Someone Else to Pay for Transportation

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. If you like rap:

      Song title Fuck Joe Biden

      1. I'm holding out for the metal version.

        1. Metallica sold out ages ago.

          Oh. You said heavy metal.

          1. Dave Mustaine was the best Metallica ever had, but Megadeth is better than Metallica ever was.

            1. I enjoyed Metallica up until Master of Puppets, but those fuckers needed a haircut. To their credit, they laughed when I told them just that during the Master of Puppets tour. I wonder if they would still laugh along with skaters, metalheads, SHARP skins.

              1. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.XEh Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site and visit tabs...

                For more details.......... Visit Here

          2. "You said heavy metal."

            Ah, so Jethro Tull then?

    2. Phuch them and the jackass they rode here on. I'll stick with my gas-burner. Drive 70 and let a Yankee freeze in the dark!

    3. “ As a means of lessening not only carbon emissions, but exhaust pollution, shifting to EVs is a perfectly laudable step ”

      No, it’s moronic from every angle.

      1. What's a Bolt? And there's 2 versions? What if you had a bucket of them?

      2. If you were Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.JKl Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…

        Start today...........Earn-Opportunities

    4. YEAH! Waste our tax dollars on more subsidies

      1. They are not your tax dollars.

    5. It’s a lie, first of all, Camry hybrids much less any hybrid that is not a plug in does not qualify for rebates anyway!! Second, people who purchase Tesla are wealthy so they don’t need the rebates!!

    6. Seem like you should be charging him rent.

  2. If enacted as written, the bonus $4,500 in electric vehicle credits could only apply to cars made by Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler)

    Election 2020 rewards for services rendered.

    1. Just like how billions are going to the tech giants to help with "R&D".

      1. Or going to your competitors if you don't police "misinformation" on your sites.

      2. This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company BVx now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

        For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH

    2. and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler)

      Build Back The Netherlands Better.

    3. Musk must not have paid enough tribute.

      1. Mean tweets have consequences...

    4. If this passes, Musk should take it to a federal court and seek damages.

      1. Every American should fight this. Which is the standard dynamic anymore. Americans trying to protect themselves from democrats.

  3. "As part of Biden's plan to rein in carbon emissions, the bill contains a provision that would provide a $7,500 tax rebate to any consumer who purchases an electric vehicle, including both all-electric and plug-in hybrids."

    The current bill also imposes a 2.5 gallon gas tank limit on plug-in hybrids, making a vehicle design that works best for most people into something useless (but more expensive). Kinda like much of government.

    1. Don't forget the convenient breathalyzer starter.

      1. That alone is sufficient to provoke American Revolution 2.0.

        1. If you recall, the first thing we got after we let women vote was Prohibition. Enough Karens and pussy-whipped men went along once--it could happen again.

          1. “Womans be thinkin’ too much!”

            -Ike Turner, in his thought provoking treatise on feminism

    2. Because evaporative emissions and safety are so much improved by the 5 gallon jerrycan in the trunk?

      1. Everyone has a pinto now!

    3. Man, the Dems are LOVING these tax cuts for the rich, ain't they?

      Know who is not buying electric cars? Poor folks.

      1. My neighbor just got a tax credit for replacing his roof, too. Million dollar homes and it needs a $30,000 roof replacement. So he decides to put solar on the roof, and all of a sudden all the roof work is deductible and part of it is paid off by credits for the solar from California and the federal government.

        And don't forget conservation reserve plots. You can buy some ranch land in the mountains, build a massive estate, then convert all the land around your house to a CRP. Now you get big tax deductions, and rent payments from the government. And your kids don't have to pay estate taxes on the thousands of acres that are passed down along with the house.

        The rich are doing ok, my friends. They'll be ok.

        1. Absolutely. Give the rich their due. Who else is going to spend money to prop up the economy? While not rich I took a similar 30% tax credit for solar since we got a fairly large oil Royalty check. The TC cancelled my federal taxes on it. It’s like finding $100 bills lying around.

  4. "Rather than simply a blanket advantage for American companies (which would be bad enough), it is a clear giveaway to the United Auto Workers (UAW) labor union."

    If we really wanted transparency in government, we could require citizens to hand-deliver cash to union members each month.

    1. There are some in the commentariat that would not only hand deliver but would also use their mouth.

    2. Let’s not give them any ideas.

  5. Just look at those joke “cars” in the picture and compare them to a Tesla.
    GM is doomed.

    1. Take off the doors and they would make okay golf carts.

    2. GM is doomed.


      1. How can they be doomed with a Democrat majority and president?

    3. Government Motors ain’t going anywhere.

    4. GM is doomed, but so is Tesla. If Toyota decides that the buying public really wants battery cars, they'll crush Tesla like a bug.


  6. After COP26, Electric Vehicles Galore!
    What surging stocks say about a favorite climate non-solution.
    By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
    Nov. 23, 2021 6:15 pm ET

    I’ve become a connoisseur of the ways pundits deceive themselves that the passenger cars you and I drive, which sit idle 95% of the time, are a solution to global warming. Up pops a specimen every five minutes, including a recent example from Bloomberg News.

    First the article observes that the “transport sector” is responsible for “about a quarter” of global emissions, then it carefully adds that “passenger vehicles are the largest chunk of this, releasing about 45% of carbon dioxide.”

    Forty-five percent sounds like a lot but notice that we’re talking about 45% of 24% (to use the actual number from Oxford University’s Our World in Data)—or about 10.8% of all global emissions, and this is for every sort of road transport.

    In the U.S, a taxi typically is used for one or two 12-hour shifts a day. A passenger bus grinds out 43,647 miles of mostly stop-and-go driving. In contrast, a Tesla covers about the same mileage as any other personal car, about 12,500 miles a year, and otherwise spends the vast majority of its time idly sucking power from the grid to top off its battery and keep multiple onboard computers ticking over.

    Do I also need to mention that 63.3% of global electricity is produced from fossil fuels? Or that copper, nickel, cobalt and lithium mining for electric-vehicle batteries makes their production a lot more CO2-intensive? Or that when you drive a Tesla, you make it cheaper for someone else to consume gasoline?

    Estimates are hard to find, but private nonbusiness passenger vehicles likely account for no more than 6% of global emissions, of which at best half might be eliminated if consumers could be impelled to switch to electric cars, which they have good reasons to avoid.

    1. cont.

      Don’t get me wrong. Ways exist of encouraging less consumption of fossil fuels if that’s worth doing, but subsidizing electric cars for affluent taxpayers is not one of them. It allows politicians to pretend to be taking action while avoiding unpopular discussions about carbon taxes and nuclear-power expansion. It’s a silent bribe to green voters and lobby groups to play along. When the top federal tax rate for affluent U.S. voters is 40.8% and headed to almost 52% under pending Democratic legislation, the appeal of serving up this influential bloc of voters a big wet deduction for treating themselves to an electric car is obvious but it has nothing to do with climate change.

      It’s worth recalling Donald Trump’s exact words about the climate lobby: “It’s a money-making industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”

      This is so consistent with human nature and political incentive, it’s a wonder anyone bothers to argue.

      Which brings us to the surreal COP26 climate summit that just wrapped up. Joe Biden, according to the Washington Post, in private White House planning recognized that countries would not live up to their emissions goals. It didn’t change anything he publicly said or did.

      Propagandizing for the cause, the New York Times devoted a lengthy article to accusing West Virginia’s Democratic senator, Joe Manchin, of choosing a future of climate-caused flooding for his state in order to save coal jobs. But the only choice facing a West Virginia politician is whether to protect coal jobs or not, climate change being beyond his control. Falsifying such an obvious political reality advances only the cause of souring the public on the quality of news analysis.

      Or take the orchestrated folly of private business “sustainability.” This is pure smokescreen: Only governments can create meaningful incentives for humanity to use less fossil fuels and they haven’t done so.

      It seems academic at this point, but a democratically plausible strategy for reducing emissions has always dangled before us. Every country’s tax code is an incubator-in-waiting of coalitions that might readily embrace a carbon tax in return for cutting other taxes. Coalition building, though, hasn’t been the agenda of the environmental movement, which finds it thrives better by promoting green pork while vilifying heretics.

      In the meantime, the stock market is telling us something. The path of least political resistance, while doing nothing meaningful about alleged climate risks, will be throwing money at electric cars. Rivian, the electric-truck company that has sold a handful of electric trucks, debuted recently at a market value of $120.5 billion. Lucid Group, which delivered its first car a few days ago, is worth more than Ford or GM.

      The granddaddy of them all, Tesla, has seen its market value triple to $1 trillion in less than a year, and climb 18-fold in two years, without any revolution whatsoever taking place in its expectations. Tesla remains a smallish car maker whose profits depend largely on regulatory credits.

      There may be plenty of reasons to think less of Mr. Biden since he became president, but his participation in the EV scam, proposing massive new subsidies for car buyers and charging stations, isn’t one of them. He’s not even more of a fraud in such matters than President Obama was.

      1. Do I also need to mention that 63.3% of global electricity is produced from fossil fuels?

        And the rest is hydro and nuclear, because with current technology windmills and solar are expensive but silly fashion accessories for politicians.

        I argued with Tony about this once and he was convinced that we could get 100% of our energy from solar if only big oil wasn't suppressing it. I asked him what would happen at night and on cloudy days and he was baffled. He'd never actually considered it.
        Just like steak comes from supermarkets, electricity came from wires for him, and the rest was all theory.

        1. "Just like steak comes from supermarkets, electricity came from wires for him, and the rest was all theory."

          Ultimately, the solution for progressives is forced sacrifice.

          Biden wants to get rid of natural gas driven electricity--and he wants us to learn to go without.

          Meanwhile, using electricity to power our vehicles creates more demand for electricity than we had before. It's not just about creating as much electricity as we used before without fossil fuel sources. It's also about adding all of our vehicles.

          The end result is forced sacrifice. There is no way around forced sacrifice. On the one hand, they don't want to say that out loud. On the other hand, they're constantly preaching the virtues of sacrifice in terms of shutting down pipelines, killing frackers, etc. It's like the cutting supply side is all about forced sacrifice now--even as they try to tell us that it won't require sacrifices on the consumption side of the equation.

          1. I made a comment in the inflation article that the whole premise of the article is that progressives actually care that there’s inflation. Outside of the political effects, they don’t.

            1. I've read arguments on Bloomberg and elsewhere that worrying about inflation is racist--because unemployed African Americans tend to have more opportunities for employment in a highly inflationary economy.

              Here's on example:


              Further evidence of progressives' obsession with forced sacrifice. They literally want the Fed to force us to sacrifice our standard of living and our savings for the benefit of others.

              1. Sacrifice for others? Why else have a gigantic government with the power to confiscate and redistribute?

        2. I’ve sold solar equipment. Tony has no fucking clue what he’s talking about (as usual). Solar won’t so,ve shit without substantial improvements in the technology, which are not forthcoming for a very long time.

          We really need to have a National discussion about what to do about our democrat problem. Until then, things will get worse.

        3. he was convinced that we could get 100% of our energy from solar if only big oil wasn't suppressing it.

          Yeah, lefturds simply can't get their heads around supply and demand. They're stuck in their pseudo-intellectual, academic mindset where you get what you want by throwing a bigger tantrum than the next worthless asshole.

          If solar/wind/unicorn farts really could deliver reliable power for less cost than petroleum and/or coal, there's not a damned thing Exxon, the Saudis, or anyone else could do to prevent it. Nobody's big enough to overrule customers' choices when there's a better alternative to the status quo.


      2. I was wholly on board right up until this point:
        Only governments can create meaningful incentives for humanity to use less fossil fuels and they haven’t done so.

        No. Natural events can create their own incentives for change without outside interference. It's a foundation of sentience. If the sea level starts rising and your house floods, you don't need a government incentive to move away from the coast line.

        Apparently, wearing a political mask is harder than wearing an N95 mask.

        1. I agree.

          "Only governments can create meaningful incentives for humanity to use less fossil fuels and they haven’t done so."

          Elon Musk made billions offering consumers a green option.

          Americans gave $475 billion to charity last year. We know that isn't just about tax incentives for a number of reasons--the fact that millions of Americans volunteer their non-tax refundable time being one of them.

          It's possible for the government to create incentives, but the reason lots of consumers pay a premium for greener options--despite the higher costs--is because they care for their own reasons.

          1. Elon Musk made billions offering consumers a green option.

            Nope. He produced a massive bubble stock by offering consumers a way to substitute coal power for gasoline power, and giving them a way to sneer at poor people who can't afford such foolishness.


            1. Actually, fossil fuels only make up about 60% of power generation nationally, and that means for a lot of people, their electricity is coming from hydro or nuclear. Furthermore, two-thirds of that 60% from fossil fuel sources comes from natural gas--which burns cleaner than gasoline.


              Since coal only represents about 20% of our power generation nationally, that means that going electric means lower greenhouse gas emissions for 80% of Tesla buyers--assuming their cars are distributed about the country evenly. In reality, there are probably more Teslas in places that don't use as much coal.

            2. Tesla is completely revamping referral program after spending $23 million on free Supercharging

              For years, Tesla relied on its referral program to boost demand.

              The automaker doesn’t like to spend on marketing or advertising and instead, it relied on its userbase to promote its vehicles and rewarded them in the process.

              At the core of the referral program, new buyers can use referral links from current owners when buying a new Tesla and each party gets prizes.

              The prizes have changed a lot over the years.

              At the peak of the program, Tesla was giving away free new Roadsters to owners who accumulated enough referrals.

              An impressive number of people ended up reaching that level, and we estimated that Tesla would be giving away about 80 new Roadsters on top of giving out significant discounts to many more.

              CEO Elon Musk later announced that Tesla is killing its referral program due to cost concerns associated with all those Roadsters, which the automaker has yet to deliver.

              Tesla didn’t end up killing the program, but it did reduce the prizes to 1,000 free Supercharging miles on both sides of the transaction.

              Now even the free Supercharging miles are apparently starting to become a bit too expensive for Tesla.

              Sources familiar with the matter told Electrek that Tesla spent over $23 million in free Supercharging miles last quarter alone.

              It is prompting the automaker to do even more changes to the referral program.

              According to a source familiar with the matter, Tesla plans to eliminate referral links, which owners often spam on social media, and instead turn to an app-based referral program promoting in-person referrals.

              The plans are still not entirely clear, but Tesla plans to update its mobile app to have more features for non-Tesla owners.

              It is going to facilitate test drives and current owners can link their account to the new user’s app to give test drives and if those new users end up ordering a Tesla, the current owner will be rewarded.

              My understanding is that Tesla isn't revamping the program because of the $23M specifically, but because hundreds if not thousands of internet personalities and private individuals have racked up millions of free miles... each.

              Tesla is revolutionizing the Mary Kay/Lululemon/drop-ship/Ponzi industry by promising electric cars will meaningfully reduce climate change.

      3. Tesla remains a smallish car maker whose profits depend largely on regulatory credits.
        Not true.

        1. Yeah, the best argument against credits for Tesla is that they were completely unnecessary--even from a pro-environmentalist perspective.

          When Tesla had a waiting list of 18 months, the last thing they needed was government subsidies to stimulate demand. Meanwhile, the rest of the auto industry is falling all over itself to emulate Tesla's success--because they want some of Tesla's p/e ratio.

          1. They ain’t gonna get what Tesla has because of the union negotiated obligations. Present and legacy.

            1. The unionized manufacturers need their vehicles to sell for the kinds of premiums Tesla gets because of those legacy costs at GM and elsewhere.

              "One of the most recent reports of an impressive gross margin, which fuels profitability, was in January when Guosen Securities analyzed the Model Y. The study broke down the total gross margin and revealed it was 29.4%, around three times the industry average that lies at between 8-10% for luxury cars."


              1. In other words, a democrat problem solved by creating more de or at problems at the expense of good Americans. As usual.

                1. GM was addressing legacy pension costs with the UAW when the mortgage crisis hit. In fact, Gettlefinger, head of the UAW at the time, broke off negotiations with GM management, when he realized he was being forced to make concessions, and sought the support of Barack Obama. That was when Barack Obama used TARP funds (under the auspices of GMAC financing) to nationalize General Motors. He gave the UAW's pension fund a fat chunk of the company's ownership.

                  "The "new GM" was formed from the purchase of the desirable assets of "old GM" by an entity called "NGMCO Inc." via the bankruptcy process.[61] NGMCO Inc. was renamed to "General Motors Company" upon purchase of the assets and trade name from "old GM", with the claims of former stakeholders to be handled by the "Motors Liquidation Company".[50][59] The purchase was supported by $50 billion in U.S. Treasury loans, giving the U.S. government a 60.8% stake. The Queen of Canada, in right of both Canada and Ontario, holds 11.7% and the United Auto Workers, through its health-care trust (VEBA), holds a further 17.5%. The remaining 10% is held by unsecured creditors.


                  So, yeah, your legacy pension costs because of the UAW are so high, they force the company to manufacture high margin SUVs that no one wants during an oil shock, and it eventually bankrupts the company. Instead of being forced to make concessions to management, what does the UAW do? They get the Democrat president to nationalize the company--leaving the shareholders with nothing. Some of the senior bondholders get a stake in the new GM, and guess who gets 17.5% of the new company? That's right! The UAW.

                  Meanwhile, the problems with legacy pension costs haven't changed. They just discharging much of GM's debt through bankruptcy court and largely kept things they way they were. You might wonder why anyone in their right mind would buy debt from GM at this point, considering that the government might come in and discharge the debt if it ever gets too high. But now that all the old debt is clear, the new debt they sell is senior debt--and it comes with the implicit guarantee that the Democrats will swoop in and save the UAW if it ever becomes necessary.

                  Anyway, that was only 12 years ago. In addition to all the other favors the government did for GM, they also gave them a huge tax holiday. GM hasn't had to pay hardly anything in taxes over the last ten years.

                  Add this to the list of favors the Democrats have been doing the UAW. I'd call it crony capitalism, but it's worse than that. At one point, the government owned a majority of GM stock, and they ran it for the benefit of the union that represents its workers. There isn't anything capitalist about that. It's straight up democratic socialism. And, yes, GM will work itself into the exact same problems all over again--because the cause of the problem hasn't been addressed, which is the union, its pension demands, and the willingness of the Democrats to bail them out with taxpayer money whenever necessary.

                  Yeah, they got a liver transplant, but guess what? The patient is still drinking a fifth of whiskey every single day. There's no mystery about where that leads and why.

                  1. Yeah, it was obvious at the time that it wasn’t a real solution. Just stealing money from secured bond holders and taxpayers to reward democrat union allies.

                    How long until enough people finally admit that something has to be done about the democrat problem.

            2. And musk apparently got red pilled.

              1. "Take the red pill"

                ----Elon Musk


                I believe he made that statement when Newsom shut down his Tesla factories for Covid-19.

                He later moved Tesla's headquarters to Texas.

                A couple of weeks ago, he replied, "I keep forgetting you're still alive" to Bernie Sanders on Twitter.

                I suspect he's smart enough not to proclaim himself on one side or the other of the Republican/Democrat divide, and I'm sure he has plenty of bad things to say about Republican politicians--who deserve it. So do you and I.

                That being said, on the ideological spectrum from left to right, I would not say that Musk is a socialist--judging by his actions over the last two years, anyway. That's for sure.

                1. Elon can be a dick, but sometimes in very good ways.

                  1. The kinds of people who become wildly successful and revolutionize all sorts of industries with their efforts generally aren't the kinds of people that are fun to have over on Sundays to eat pizza and watch the game.

                    George Washington ordered men to the deaths.

                    I've seen construction guys fire people in a recession, when there weren't any jobs and they were already in danger of losing their homes.

                    The best surgeon in the hospital is sometimes the guy with the worst bedside manner.

                    Being a good dad can sometimes mean coming down hard on your kid when the situation demands it.

                    Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Tom Brady may not be the kinds of guys anybody would want to hang around with in real life.

                    I know a really smart guy. Nicest guy in the world. If he were the manager of a fast food franchise, his employees would eat all the profits and pocket all of the cash. His employees wouldn't show up to work on time, and they'd treat the customers like shit. It is often the case that management candidates are simply people who don't require supervision, but not requiring supervision doesn't make you a good manager.

                    I understand Steve Jobs wasn't a lot of fun to be around either. Wozniak was supposed to be a lot of fun to be around, but nobody really remembers him anymore. Bill Gates was never known as a really nice guy. To be really successful, I think you probably need to be insensitive to people's feelings to some degree--when it's necessary and right to be insensitive to people's feelings. If Musk is kind of a dick sometimes, that's also probably part of the reason why he's so successful.

                  2. I dislike a lot of things about Musk. But at least he isn’t a raving Marxist.

                    1. Other than missing a 'yet', I'd agree. And that's not necessarily an indictment of Musk, though the watermelon/futurist ideology is strong, it's just an acknowledgement that even the quintessentially evil libertarian Koch brothers can suddenly wake up good-in-full-faith Marxists.

                    2. I probably hate marxists more than anyone here. I believe it is necessary for the survival of the republic to purge this country of its marxists, which most,y consist of the democrat party anymore. To the point that the practice of Marxism should be fully criminalized.

                      That being said, I’m not willing to condemn Musk as one until he actually turns pinko. God knows we have our work cut out with all the progs who are most definitely Marxist traitors already. I sincerely hope Musk sees fit to not join their soulless, unholy ranks.

          2. Ken, we know that differential taxation has only one purpose: reward political allies and punish political enemies.

        2. Not true.

          It depends on what you consider the definition of the word 'largely' to be. If you consider it to mean 'greatest proportion' you're correct. If you consider it to be 'most critically', outlook not so clear.

          Further, I'd put down $$ to donuts that, despite the bravado, the longer you discuss it with fanbois like Ken, the more preferences would be revealed that they don't want the tax breaks for Teslas to go away and would, potentially, even compromise on build back better or even American values otherwise in order to get Tesla an equal share of the subsidies.

          Ken talks up the p/e ratios, but Tesla has several rolling Ponzi schemes built, basally, on climate science that he doesn't believe in. He writes it off as people making voluntary choices to be a part of the hype, which is what you do when you consider yourself to be one of the good guys and doing your part at the middle or upper part of the scheme to make people rich by providing them the goods they need, er, believe in, er, knowingly, er, voluntarily buy into, er, purchase. Yeah, that's the ticket, they're really popular of their own merit and people are voluntarily purchasing them!

          1. If you consider it to be 'most critically', outlook not so clear.

            Dangit. I'd swear I left that "Every market where Tesla's (or all) EVs have lost subsidies their market share crashes and, apparently, doesn't recover."

            1. Is Tesla having trouble selling automobiles?

              The argument wasn't that subsidies don't have any impact on demand. The argument was that demand was more than sufficient without the subsidies.

              You still need to wait at least three to six months for the cheaper models of a Tesla. You may need to wait much longer than that for the higher priced models. Because the list for backorders doesn't grow as quickly without subsidies doesn't mean Tesla factories have ever been idle due to a lack of orders. They can't build factories fast enough--with our without subsidies. The question with Tesla was always whether they could fulfil their huge backlist of orders. It was never a problem with not having enough orders--not even when the subsidies were in place.

              That is why it was unnecessary to have subsidies.

              In regards to TSLA's p/e ratio, I wouldn't buy shares in such a volatile stock, but part of their valuation is based on an expectation of growth. TSLA's p/e ratio is 365 right now, which doesn't mean investors expect to get the share price back in earnings by holding it for 365 years. It means investors expect TSLA's sales and growth to accelerate TSLA's sales growth has tripled over the last two years. Honest people can argue about whether that will continue. Reasonable people can't argue that TSLA hasn't achieved amazing real world growth--as it continues to open new factories and deliver more and more vehicles.

              Meanwhile Rivian (RIVN) enjoys a market cap of over $100 billion dollars on no real deliveries (except to its own employees) at this point. They don't have any earnings yet!

              Compare that to GM, which has a market cap of $90 billion and a p/e ratio of 8 (eight). Ford (F) has a market cap of $81 billion and a p/e ratio of 28. Ford was one of the biggest pre-IPO investors in Rivian (the other one being Amazon), but they dissolved their partnership after the IPO--and Ford made so much money. Ford is taking their trucks electric. And it isn't for whatever elitist aesthetical reasons you imagine. It's because they want their stock to enjoy the kind of multiple stocks like Rivian and Tesla enjoy, and it's because they're afraid if they don't go electric, Rivian and Tesla will eat their lunch.

              P.S. Tesla's secondary businesses selling solar and batteries is relatively lower margin. The shareholders who are upset with Tesla are upset because they didn't want that low margin solar and battery business to be folded into Tesla. They think it's actually hurting growth rather than contributing to their bottom line. Oh, and is Rivian enjoying a sky high valuation because of secret side businesses, too? I don't think so. I think investors are just betting on whether the growth will just be incredible or whether it will be incredible + amazing.

              1. The argument was that demand was more than sufficient without the subsidies.

                See below. This has been repeatedly demonstrated as untrue, even reversibly/causally, across several markets far more friendly to Tesla's ideology/motives. Even in markets where it's more proportionately popular and the population at large wish it were more sustainable economically, it's not.

                1. "This has been repeatedly demonstrated as untrue"

                  The tax credits for buying a Tesla expired on January 1, 2020.

                  Tesla has continued to sell every car it makes without the tax credits--right up until today.

                  Tesla's revenue has almost tripled over the last two years--without the tax credits.


                  Demand is more than sufficient--without the subsidies--and it's been that way for almost two years.

                  I've already posted the stat about how Tesla's gross profit margin is close to 30% on some of their vehicles, which is several times that of other luxury car manufacturers. We know that they sell every car they manufacture months before they manufacture it. And their ability to sell cars is limited by their ability to open new factories and manufacture more cars--rather than demand constraints.

                  The only open question is why you want to believe that tax credits/subsidies are necessary to stimulate sufficient despite all these facts. Are you in favor of the subsidies for some reason? Why do you want to believe they're necessary to stimulate demand when Tesla can't manufacture cars quickly enough to meet the overwhelming demand--despite the lack of government incentives?

                  It looks like you've rejected the conclusions of the climate justice warriors--but internalized their premises. The climate justice warriors are wrong to insist that the government address climate change in this way, and they're wrong to say subsidies are necessary in order to stimulate sufficient demand, too. It's sort of like the O.J. trial--when the LAPD framed a guilty man. It was unnecessary to frame OJ. And it is unnecessary for the government to stimulate demand for the only vehicle manufacturer who saw sales increase during the pandemic--and saw that happen after the tax incentives expired.

                  Yeah, it isn't just that Tesla saw sales increase in calendar year 2020--after the government incentives expired. It's also that all the other auto manufacturers saw sales numbers fall through the floor in 2020.

                  The tax credits/subsidies are unnecessary for Tesla, and they never were necessary.

                  1. Sales of new vehicles in the U.S. are expected to close this year down at least 15% compared with 2019.

                    "Edmunds expects new vehicle sales to be down 15.5% this year when the final statistics are released in roughly two weeks. That’s in line with other industry estimates calling for sales of about 14.4 million to 14.6 million new vehicles in 2020 – down from 17 million or higher the past five years. Cox Automotive is forecasting a 15.3% decline, while TrueCar expects a 15% loss compared with 2019 sales.


                    Tesla had a much higher profit margin than other manufacturers; their sales were up when everyone else's were down--and they did it all without subsidies.

                    But they need subsidies for some reason?!

                    Bullshit. This is about socialists who are mystified by market demand and customer preferences. This is about socialists who assume that if the government isn't involved, then the problem isn't being addressed. This is about socialists who think that political support for climate change legislation is real, but consumer demand is a non-entity. This thinking is for elitists and socialists who don't think consumers are smart enough or caring enough to do the right thing--unless the government gives them incentives to do it. It's socialist bullshit. Don't fall for the conclusions. Don't fall for the premises. Don't fall for any of it.

                  2. "End of an era: 2020 brings Tesla's federal tax credit to zero"

                    ----December 26, 2019


                  3. It Isn’t Just Tesla’s Stock That Needs to Slow Down

                    Whatever your view on Tesla, pulling money out of the car industry right now makes sense.

                    Two years ago, the world’s top 10 auto makers by market value outside China were together worth about $680 billion. Now they are valued at more than $2 trillion. Tesla has jumped from third place to an enormous lead, and this month electric-vehicle makers Rivian and Lucid replaced Honda and Ferrari in the ranking. Rivian’s stock has more than doubled since its initial public offering last Wednesday.

                    This extraordinary surge in market value, which the changes in the pecking order suggest is mainly related to EVs, is almost impossible to rationalize. The earnings potential of a mature industry can’t have tripled.

                    The wait-list has always been hype. Using IOUs traded under false pretenses as a proxy for actual signals.

                    Now, Ken, Musk is, as we speak, liquidating shares. So, the question to you is, "Is the bubble bursting or, in the background of Biden's BBB plan, the auto industry suddenly tripling in value is real-world market signalling?"

                    1. electric-vehicle makers Rivian and Lucid replaced Honda and Ferrari in the ranking

                      Rivian and Lucid have, what, 1000 vehicles off the production line between them? And they're worth more than Toyota *and* Ferrari. You're telling me that's a true and believable/sensible market signal? Not just tell me it's a true signal but, in the background of BBB, Glasgow, and the IPCC, there's no government interference in that true signal.

                    2. Musk owes $10 billion in taxes for options he was granted back in 2012--and selling stock so you can pay the taxes necessary to exercise the options you want to exercise is not an excellent example of Musk selling Tesla shares short because he doesn't believe in the business model. While it's true that he's selling more in Tesla shares than he needs for the taxes, he could be doing that for all sorts of reasons. He could be looking to sink more into SpaceX, the Boring Company, or some other new venture, or it could simply be profit taking.

                      If someone sells half of their ROKU shares--after it's gone up 400% in two years--that doesn't mean they think Roku is suddenly a bad bet. They may just see other opportunities elsewhere, and they may be looking to raise cash to put into other ventures--for diversification reasons. Chances are that Tesla's stock growth won't be as astronomical as it was in the past. If Tesla's unit sales tripled over the next year and its market capitalization didn't change, Tesla's p/e ratio would still be five to ten times as high as GM's or Ford's.

                      Assuming that Musk is selling Tesla stock short because he doesn't believe in the business is nuts, when he needs to pay $10 billion in taxes on the options he's exercising and when Tesla's stock has run up so high. Anyone, other than Musk or an index driven fund--who's been in Tesla's stock as long as Musk has--sold fat chunks of their Tesla stock long ago both for profit taking and diversification reasons without having any options to exercise. It makes a ton of sense for Musk to do the same thing for the same reasons.

                    3. "Rivian and Lucid have, what, 1000 vehicles off the production line between them? And they're worth more than Toyota *and* Ferrari. You're telling me that's a true and believable/sensible market signal?"

                      I wouldn't buy Rivian stock at that price, but I didn't think people would pay $2 for a cup of coffee back when Starbucks came out either. That being said, I've been hyping Rivian trucks on this website for a couple of years. Ask John (if he ever comes back) and soldiermedic. Because I wouldn't buy the stock at this valuation doesn't mean I don't want to buy a truck. And because I'm not willing to risk an investment at that valuation doesn't mean they won't be wildly successful. If they sell half as many trucks as people are projecting, the stock will crash and they'll be a wildly successful ongoing business selling an incredible number of trucks and truck platforms.

                      Some of the biggest telcos that built the internet infrastructure went bust and were sold to rivals when the dotcom bubble burst. The capacity they were laying the cable for were completely unrealistic, people said. No one will ever need that much bandwidth. I wouldn't have bought any of their stocks when they were flying that high. Within a few years of them being sold to rivals (think WorldcomMCI and Qwest), it became clear that their bets on consumers needing all that bandwidth and capacity were legitimate. We are using the cables they laid down.

                      Amazon ordered 100,000 Rivian delivery vehicles. You can slap any configuration you want on top of their platform. They aren't limited by the size of the consumer market. They're selling to corporates customers for fleet trucks and vans, as well. And any auto manufacturer can order the platform from Rivian and slap their own body on top of it. The motors are in the wheels. Their business model could be like Dell computer, Compaq, and HP selling branded desktop computers with "Intel inside".

                      They're not just competing against GM and Ford. Ford was one of their biggest investors. Ford made billions off of the IPO. Even if they were just competing against GM and Ford's trucks, they'd be doing so with the benefit of not having their legacy pension costs weighing them down. But they aren't just competing with GM and Ford. Ford invested when they were a fledgling company because they wanted to sell Ford branded Rivians. If and when Rivian is wildly successful, it may be because Ford and GM are Rivian's biggest customers. Will they be wildly successful?

                      I don't know if it will be them or someone else, and we'll see how successful they are when they start delivering trucks to consumers and delivery vans to Amazon and other companies. I wouldn't put my money at risk given their current valuation, but I wouldn't bet against them either. Maybe you should short them--and use lots of leverage! I'd advise against it. I bet you won't find many professional investment managers out there who think shorting Rivian is a great idea--because they're smart.

              2. The sale of electric vehicles strengthen communist China at our expense.

                1. Beyond protecting the right of 325 million individual Americans to make choices for themselves--from their own individual perspective--I don't know how you can claim what's in the best interests of America in terms of trade in a whole class of products like that. The individuals who purchase those products do so because they believe it's in their best interest to do so, and who are you to argue with them? In terms of them buying those products at "our" expense, if you choose not to buy them, it doesn't cost you anything, and this is as it should be.

                  Libertarian capitalism is about 325 million individuals being free to make choices for themselves. It is not about using the government to stop people from doing things because they supposedly aren't in the interests of America. I don't know that black metal, alcoholic beverages, pay day loan centers, prosperity ministries, rifles that are accurate to 800 yards, Nickelback concerts, Japanese squid pr0n, menthol cigarettes, or sugary soft drinks are in the best interests of America, but I know that neither other people nor their rights exist for my benefit.

                  If Americans want to buy those things or electric cars, "we" have no business getting in their way.

    2. Look, quit quibbling. Throw that stuff in your blue bin, the big diesel truck will take it... somewhere and in the end we save the planet.

  7. Shocking that Biden would give a handout to his cronies. His Presidency has failed to amp up voter so far. He needs a jolt and Build Back Better might just be the ticket.

    1. Implicit in this statement is that EV manufacturers, all of them, are Biden cronies. Considering his near mandate of EVs, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just surprised that Ken "Vote for fascists, get fascism" Schultz is, and has been, on board with the EV push and is now only opposed inasmuch as his preferred crony isn't being cut in on the deal.

  8. Weird that comments won't post on the early steps toward concentration camps article.

    1. They had to replace to D cells that run the servers.

  9. Interesting thought...

    I am more and more convinced the global powers that be are imposing the mandates because they don't want a control group of non mRNA injected people to exist when they won't be able to hide the extent of deaths and injuries caused by the their experiment.

    1. Yep. They know for a fact the jab doesn't stop transmission and at best it's personal protection. Yet they continue......

    2. If everyone gets genetic mutations, then it isn’t really a mutation.

      1. Then we can all be X-Men!

    3. As long as we're going full paranoid, I'll add this - What if the purpose is to see if you can surreptitiously inject a foreign agent to a global population? Perhaps a drug that inhibits reproduction, which can only be deactivated by a second, government-controlled drug?

      It would be a quick path to global population control.

      1. That idea has actually been seriously discussed before.

        I think you can still go further towards full paranoid.

        1. I think you can still go further towards full paranoid.

          A second, government-controlled drug would be far too obvious even to an exceedingly stupid populace, only leaves you in control of the bodies, and not even all the bodies, just the ones who were originally vaccinated.

          Now, a binary vector, where one injection primes the subjects, a second activates them, spread across several years or decades... and the government appears as saviors by developing a miracle cure would allow you to weed out undesirables across multiple waves and come out looking like not just the good guy, but beyond reproach? All those fools who rode out multiple waves without getting vaccinated, who opposed us as we combated each successive wave, who even opposed us funding and expediting a cure, called us Nazis... they're the ones who's ideology you want to follow? No, their individualist ideology is too self-serving, too narrow, too short-term to be entrusted with the future of mankind.

          1. I mean, Mrs. Casual gets vaccinated and needs the cure but I and the kids don't isn't going to play well in the media when it comes time to talk up your government-controlled drug and, whatever the outcome, the kids are going to remember it. Probably for a couple of generations.

            Now, Mrs. Casual getting the first vaccine and dying of "natural causes", I maybe/maybe not getting the second vaccine and dying of "natural causes". The kids, OTOH, choosing not to get one or both vaccines, maybe/maybe not dying of COVID-19, maybe/maybe not dying of COVID-32... who's going to untangle that mess? Why, the CDC, of course!

      2. basis for Amazon's Utopia.

        1. I prefer the Todd Rundgren song.

        2. Hey, I have Prime. Will my Utopia ship for free?

        3. Utopia got canceled due to people comparing it to covid.

    4. I think you're half right. I believe they don't want to see natural immunity play out.

  10. So be sure to discount any expected gains from the "climate" spending by whatever amount the government will be overpaying.

  11. Psaki: No Apology for Biden Calling Rittenhouse 'White Supremacist'

    Joe Biden's tanking approval rating is likely to fall below 25% by the end of the year.

    1. If it continues falling, I'll be able to put it on this year's "12 Days of Reason", which I'm starting to put together.

      1. On the first day of Brokemas Joe Brandon gave to me...

        One pudding pop.
        Two bloated bills, three rigged states, four... Ah fuck, skip ahead... And seven droned kids...

    2. I’m giddy at the idea of KR suing Biden. The democrats have been trying to dig into Trump’s financials for years without a valid pretext. Now KR actually has one to dig into Biden’s. Soon there will be a deep dive into ‘the Big Guy’s’ assets.

      It would be fantastic if this managed to force the Bidens into bankruptcy. They deserve to lose everything.

    3. Team Rittenhouse is considering suing Biden of the lie. Psaki pshould pstay psilent.

      1. Psaki pshould pstay psilent.

        Not keep talking in order to Jen up support?

        1. Too many pfibs already. No trust.

      2. More evidence with every slanderous statement!

  12. Can we get a $12k tax rebate for purchasing paintings from people named Hunter?

    1. A Hunter Biden $500,00 original is now worth 20+ billion in U.S. government rebates.

      1. And about $35 anonymously on the open market.

  13. Musk built Tesla on the back of government subsidies, but since he will not knuckle under to unions and othe Democrat demands Tesla is being cut out from that racket.

    That they wrote that provision so that it only covers one model that is not in production due to safety issues is just par for the course of competence by the progressives.

    1. Why is foreign company Stellantis subsidized?

      1. Because it was Chrysler, and is unionized.

        1. Also, European, so that's cool with lefty elitists. Asian brands are owned by the recently de-minoritized yellow people.

    2. Actually Musk bought into Tesla in 2004. The government didn't offer any subsidies or incentives for EVs until 2008.

      1. Since we're just spouting irrelevancies that don't refute or prove anything, I'll mention that Tesla's prototype wasn't revealed until 2006 and the first factory wasn't purchased until 2010.

        1. And they only recently turned a quarterly profit...?

  14. In the name of "following the Science!", Science fiction authors propose altering how the population thinks in order to make it more amenable to technocratic orders.

    "... The root problem of all these things is Human Nature; so ultimately, that’s what has to change. We have to immunize ourselves against trolley paradoxes and kin selection, we have to eliminate hyperbolic discounting from the human mindset. We have to weed out all these destructive circuits at the neurochemical level.”

    That is a great challenge from both the scientific and social standpoint. Watts’ work often revolves around changing Human Nature (e.g. in Blindsight, the Sunflowers cycle stories, “Incorruptible” or “Repeating The Past”), partly or as the main story theme, and he finds inspiration for his fiction in cutting-edge research: “For example, victims of Parkinson’s tend to be less religious than the rest of the population: if you could isolate that one impact, there’s a chance we could weed religious belief out of the human mindset, which would make us a lot less pernicious right out of the gate. Certain types of brain lesions make people a lot more effective at utilitarian choices, make us less moral and more ethical. Amping up the brain’s production of nociceptin could counteract some of the more pernicious, addictive, reward-seeking effects of dopamine—make us less greedy, in other words. So there are hints of a long-term solution. But as far as I know, there isn’t even the whiff of an actual research program on the horizon, and that’s no surprise. Try to get funding for a project whose stated goal is to save Humanity by making it less Human.”

    A grand vision worthy of SF, and one that might very well be actually helpful, but how many people in the near future would willingly give up Humanity with the capital H? Wouldn’t an attempt to avert the social problems standing in the way of a more sustainable civilization run into the same social problems?

    G. David Nordley said: “We need to understand better why so many people do irrational things that endanger the well-being, if not the existence, of their own species.” The problem is, though, that for the most part, we do know—it’s just hard to change, unless we start thinking of changing ourselves, like outlined above. That’s related not just to our response to climate change, but also the pandemic and other disasters. We’ve seen—and are still seeing—many people, even in influential positions, play down the dangers of Covid, disregard expert advice, refuse to wear a mask among others, reject vaccines, spread rumors with no foundation in science… It’s alarming that even countries that started vaccinating early and quickly are now having trouble reaching somewhere near the expected herd immunity threshold—not because they lacked vaccines, but because they lack adults willing to get their jab and protect themselves and others. Conquering diseases was the challenge Lucie Lukačovičová raised, along with transhumanism as one of the ways SF works have suggested as a potential solution (coming with its own problems)."

    Maybe the technocrats will not have to elect a new people in order to get to the world they want.

    1. This argument makes several of the same mistakes a number of economists make repeatedly - that people are making irrational decisions. Given their needs, desires, and knowledge people are making perfectly rational decisions.

      Distributed decision making is what makes humans a successful species. If you take away our aversion to collectivism you will just enable even bigger failures of socialism. These proposed genetic changes have the potential to end the human race by eliminating the traits that make us successful.

      Good thing it is still sci-fi. As sci-fi these ideas are a fun playground.

      1. Perfectly rational? Like when people vote for the taller candidate with better hair? Larding up on high fat foods? Conforming to tribal values and even "facts"?

        Most people barely use any reasoning or cognition for making decisions. Gut intuition might be convenient and easy, but it is hardly rational.

        1. Well. Mostly rational 🙂
          If it doesn't seem rational to you it is likely because you are you and not them.

          It is perfectly rational to self sooth with fat foods, drugs, etc - if you are the person suffering. The decisions might be terrible, but they are more rational than you think. It doesn't have to be higher cognition to be rational within the context of an individuals perception.

        2. Most people barely use any reasoning or cognition for making decisions.

          Writing and posting this sentence included.

        3. Of course some free people make poor decisions. It’s like evolution: there are all sorts of mutations and the ones which help make more offspring over many generations are the ones which survive. Elitists point out the poor decisions to argue for substituting their decision making for the almost random decision making of the masses. The problem is that the elitists make less obvious poor decisions and doom the society they control.

      2. This argument makes several of the same mistakes a number of economists make repeatedly - that people are making irrational decisions.

        It makes many scientistic mistakes. A pretty clear one:
        "make us less moral and more ethical"

        Pretty irrational to consider morality a problem that needs solved. Pretty fanatically self-righteous say that and then proclaim yourself both rational and morally or ethically correct.
        Just plain dumb to point out that religious people suffer Parkinson's at a lower rate than the non-religious and just assume you can eliminate religion without effectively giving everyone Parkinsons. That effectively giving everyone brain lesions to make them more utilitarian wouldn't effectively doom you to a utilitarian society.

        Here's hoping some gut-thinker shoots the motherfucker before he gives anyone a brain lesion against their will.

    2. Why would people need to exist in his opinion above?

    3. Almost like theyre not even people anymore... Would make socialism work. Also would destroy the spark of humanity.

  15. Coming from GM in 2022, the new Hunter EV.

  16. The fact that the BBB budget reconciliation bill hasn't been brought up for a vote in the Senate yet is probably a good sign. If it isn't up for a vote before Thanksgiving, it probably won't be voted on until after the New Year. The holidays are the season for Congress to raise money and win endorsements for the midterms in 2022, and voting for a controversial bill becomes increasingly unlikely once the midterm year starts.

    Now that Manchin and Sinema seem to have successfully delayed the vote past Thanksgiving, the biggest question right now is about raising the debt ceiling again, which will need to be done by sometime between December 4th and December 15th. McConnell says he won't help the Democrats raise the debt ceiling this time, but who wants to bet on McConnell's backbone? Is there a worse bet in Washington?

    Still, I don't see Biden and the progressive suddenly becoming wildly popular between Thanksgiving and mid-December, and moderate Democrats will be making choices over the holidays about who to take money from, who to make promises to, and whether they want to hitch their wagon to Biden for 2022. Why would they want to do that? Biden is toxic for moderates right now. Being associated with Biden's bill is a liability.

    If and when the Senate guts the BBB budget reconciliation bill and sends it back to the House to be voted on again sometime after January 1, 2022, the progressives are likely to find the moderate Democrats even more reluctant to vote for it than they were when they passed the more radical version. So, you'd think there was still hope that the moderate Democrats would save us [themselves]. (They don't care about us.)

    Raising the debt ceiling will be key. The progressives are very likely to attach raising the debt ceiling to the BBB budget reconciliation bill--and try to give moderate Democrats a choice between voting for the BBB budget reconciliation bill or being responsible for the U.S. government defaulting on its debt.. I don't even trust McConnell to call the progressives' bluff when that happens. Why should we have faith in the moderate Democrats to stand firm?

    I remain hopeful that this awful bill fails because I'm an American and I don't want to see the American people suffer under socialism, but it's important to remember that this battle against socialism won't be lost when the BBB budget reconciliation bill is enacted. This battle against socialism was lost when we failed to reelect Trump and when we failed to elect one of the two Republican senators in the Georgia runoff elections. You can't hand total control of the government to socialists and then pretend you didn't know it would result in socialism.

    1. “You can't hand total control of the government to socialists and then pretend you didn't know it would result in socialism.”

      Oh yeah?

      — Reason

      1. Hold my gin fizz!


      2. Also, you can't hand total control of the government to drooling idiots and then pretend you didn't know it would result in drooling idiocy.

    2. So you endorse holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage in order to prevent a governing majority from passing bills you don't like.

      This is "backbone" to you? By any objective estimation it's pure psychopothy.

      Mitch McConnell, unfortunately, will be the last Republican who isn't willing to destroy the United States purely for the sake of tantrum. And you'll be cheering that destruction at every possible opportunity. You'll be standing on the rubble of the United States feeling content that you pwned the libturds.

      1. the full faith and credit of the United States

        Oh, blow it out your ass. The "full faith and credit" of the United States has been a cynical lie since FDR stole our gold.


    3. I have no faith retiring RINOs won't take a parachute.

      Getting to be where I expect nothing less than armed revolution.

  17. Despite being much smaller than it was when initially proposed, the bill is still stuffed with Democratic wish list items, including policies on climate change, child care, family leave, and immigration.

    And it will get smaller still, but no matter how small it gets it's going to contain a germ of those policies and many more. It's called getting the foot in the door or the nose under the tent flap. Once you start a program, it only grows and it grows like kudzu. Once you establish the principle that this is a problem, it's the federal government's responsibility to fix the problem, throwing money at the problem is the best way to fix it, and that throwing the money in such a way that some favored constituency or contractor catches a big wad of it, it's off to the races! All these "free shit" policies are going to kill us.

    1. Only funded for 3 hours it costs almost nothing!

  18. Why do EVs need to be subsidized? The way I hear it, they're so fucking superior to ICE vehicles that the EVs ought to easily sell themselves.

    1. They don't need to be subsidized.

      1. The oil-loving, environment-hating, entrenched ICE culture of Canada:

        Electric vehicle sales plummet in Ontario after rebate cancellation

        The oil-loving, environment-loving, entrenched ICE culture of Denmark:
        Denmark Rethinks EV Incentives After Market Collapses - Note reintroduces subsidies, sales climb back up.

        The oil-loving, environment-hating, entrenched ICE culture of Hong Kong:
        EV Sales Slump In Hong Kong, After Subsidies Withdrawn

        The oil-loving, environment-hating, entrenched ICE culture of Norway:
        Norway is a leader in EV sales but has subsidised itself into a corner

        Still waiting on my $30K MSRP Tesla 3.

    2. Almost all of Tesla’s production for the next year is already spoken for.

      1. Can I interest you in a tiger-repelling rock? For the low, low price of $1000, you can own a rock that makes you immune to tiger attacks. They're so popular, all of my production for the next year is already spoken for. However, I'm prepared to let you secure your own tiger-repelling rock for the price of $100. It's non-refundable, but if you reserve your tiger-repelling rock now, we'll take an additional $100 off the price of your tiger-repelling rock at the time of purchase. Additionally, for every friend you refer, we'll give you an additional tiger-repelling rock. If you refer two friends, that means 3 tiger-repelling rocks! One to keep on your person, one for your home, and one for the office!

        No? Well, whether you buy a tiger-repelling rock from me today or not, do me a favor and don't go to those other tiger-repelling rock dealers who will use underhanded sales tactics to try and talk you into buying a tiger-repelling rock that's not right for you. If you do decide to buy a tiger-repelling rock, just remember we're here to help you find the tiger-repelling rock for you.

    3. News flash! The money is not to subsidize the cars and sales (aka evil capitalism). The money is graft to unions and rewards to right-thinking political activists and voters.

      1. News flash! You don't get to say what the money is for.

  19. this provision is part of Biden's "Buy American" policy of incentivizing or mandating purchases to be made domestically.

    And it's a brilliant strategy. Let's steal money from the productive and subsidize the manufacturing of crap domestically. I hope China, India and every other country that is capable of doing a better job with this shit decides to build airplanes domestically too. Better we have a bunch of unskilled high school dropouts putting cherries on cupcakes on an assembly line at a Hostess bakery and lay off a bunch of Boeing employees, than we obey the law of comparative advantage.

  20. >>it is a clear giveaway to the United Auto Workers (UAW).

    because O giving them GM wasn't enough.

  21. >>As a means of lessening not only carbon emissions, but exhaust pollution

    everything is fine unless you're standing in China. go bother them.

  22. "Dear taxpayers --- YOU are hereby FORCED by the Nazi Gov-Guns in D.C. to PAY for crappier cars whether you get one or not...", signed the Nazi-Regime.

    And to think these F'en idiots think corporations are the powerful monopolies taking everyone's money. When I get a knock on the door from a GM Gun-toting salesman demanding I pay $12,000 for a car I probably won't get; only then will 'corporations' scare me more than the Nazi's in D.C.

    1. In 1986, did you want a Lada, a Trabant or a VW?

      Note to the commie-tariat here: Tesla isn’t the Lada or Trabi in this comparison.

      1. Scirocco w/the 16v

        1. Who really needs 16 valves?

          1. Too many valves! One government sanctioned, union built valve is all we need!

        2. Scirocco with a W16. 😀

    2. Fun fact: the VW (People's Car) went on sale in Germany in the 1930s, and good citizens could and did make payments before receiving a car. Lots of National Socialist workers dutifully sent payments and got stamps in their little VW book, but nobody got a car. The money went to the state, and spending on arms.

      1. Funny how the communists and the fascists didn’t disagree all that much on HOW things would be run, so much as WHO would run them.

        1. No surprise there. Fascism was a twisted form of socialism. Most of the Nazi party platform is straight out of Marx.

  23. BoB's (burned out Biden) pro union crony payoff is not pro-American.
    It's fascism, i.e., govt.+ business exploitation of taxpayers. And it won't stimulate BEVs. It will slow their adoption. How? It will allow the legacy auto makers who fought BEVs to continue. Hybrids are not primarily electric. They are an extremely reluctant minimal concession to the BEV demand, a stopgap measure sold to placate. If not for the real BEV producer, Tesla, no BEVs would exist.

    1. If not for the real BEV producer, Tesla, no BEVs would exist.

  24. So one would get the full tax credit if you buy a Dongfeng EV if it's "made" in Seattle by members of the ACFTU.

  25. Crony Socialism strikes AGAIN!

  26. You can only drive to visit relatives for the holidays if they have a way to charge your car. I wonder how many kilowatts it takes to charge. They seem okay for around town but traveling has a logistic problem.

    1. Just for fun/info; With EV efficiency; it's pretty safe to assume 1HP Motion Power = 1KW of energy. Therefore; a 200hp SUV would consume 200KW per hour or 200KWh. In CA per KWh is $0.25/kwh. Your SUV will suck up $50/hr of fuel to drive.

      And you think fuel costs are bad now......
      And that's before the added demand is put onto the market.

      1. And talk about propaganda... Checking those figures - eia average Hawaii kwh cost $0.33 but on myev...? funny it's $0.13/kwh.

        Then there's horsepower. The XC90 I6 gas produced 235hp whereas the XC90 EV produces 87hp ALMOST 1/3rd!!!

        120MPe is 28kwh/100mi @ $0.33/kwh is $9.24 or $0.0924/mi. Ave gas price in HA is $4.30/gal right now. Therefore; a 100 mpg gas car would cost 1/2 that in Hawaii!!!!!! And don't kid yourself; EV cars are tiny enough to be pushing 100 mpg.

      2. You think blackouts, brownouts, and grid failures are bad now. Wait until this group that cannot see second and third tier consequences gets this stupid EV plan adopted.

  27. So the bill incentivizes buying EVs, further incentivizes buying them from union shops, and further incentivizes them still for buying American batteries.

    This is "pernicious" only to someone who doesn't think government should incentivize anything. But of course you don't believe that.

    Combustion engines should have been eliminated in the private market a long time ago if the private market were capable of developing cleaner energy alternatives for its own sake. Your magical market failed to prevent climate change, so your political philosophy is a failure. Just accept it and grow up.

    1. Amazing how you turn Gov-Gun threats into simply "incentivizes".
      Sorry Uncle Sam, I'm just not incentivized enough to PAY income tax this year....

      1. I mean, everyone else isn't paying... Why do I gotta buy all the beer when they won't even let me in the party?

      2. I assume you are a grown-ass human being.

        Grown-ass human beings don't base their political philosophy on "ME ME ME I WANT GIVE ME EVERYTHING AND I PAY NOTHING ME ME WANT WANT!!"

        1. Jeeez Tony; The only thing Me, Me, Me wants is not to be robbed!!!
          Holy cow; You've taken criminalistic 'entitlement' to a whole new level.

  28. I Know to how to give you pleasure, which you will remember for many years to come. This is my first time in Pune, and I am already in love with this city. I live the Central Park hotel in Pune. You do not need to register at the reception you can come without an ID. I have an clean company and it smells delicious there. I am waiting for you to visit , or I can come to you. I am waiting for your message on my whatsapp.

  29. Money printer go brrrrr

  30. It is going to be a fair priced service from the ladies here working along with us. The Hotl girls in Chandigarh would be assisting you well on being requested hence ensuring satisfactions of moods.

  31. > This is what is most pernicious

    oh, it's pernicious to recognize unions, and prefer labor unions that preserve human dignity over profit for it's own sake; Reason dot com you are soulless dead-inside fucks as is 95% of the commentariat of this site.

  32. Biden had is Marie Antoinette moment yesterday, saying that Americans who can't afford higher gas prices should by an electric Hummer like the one he saw while touring GM (MSRP 112K), and they could save a thousand dollars a year.

    They can't afford gas? Let them drive electric!

    1. Biden had is Marie Antoinette moment yesterday,


  33. Tesla already got their cut of the pie. All things held equal, if they bitch about that then they're two faced punks. These rebates should never have happened, but they did. There is no reason to continue them for Tesla as they already received their plate full of the government pork pie.

  34. The way I see it is . . . Joe's coercing you into buying an electric car, but he'll give you $13,500, if you buy it from his friends.

    Which, if you really want to be logically maleable, is a violation of the 4th amendment, becuase the Governments inordinatey contrrolling your money, by manipulating your expenditures.

    1. Or more to the point Article 1, Section 8. The USA National Government (feds) weren't granted any power for environmental concerns especially in the realm of redistribution for anything not specifically in those enumerated powers.

      Of course the Nazi-Regime in D.C. isn't the USA government but a rogue agency of Democratic National Socialism which Nationalized environmental concerns illegally.

  35. If Tesla want's to become a Friend of Joe's, they need to become "friends", with his friends. Come down to the Union hall at 10:00 Tuesday morning (Mondays a holiday) and meet Tony, Sal and TOny's punk cousin, Chrissofer.

  36. Won't hold up in court.

  37. I object to tax rebates for all electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles because there are plenty of people in the USA who don't have a personal garage or carport with an electrical outlet. It seems unfair to me to offer a tax benefit that only some citizens can use. And the fact that this rebate applies to only some vehicles - those made by Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis - makes this even worse.

    1. It goes to all EV. It is increased for American companies and American made batteries.
      And the bill you didn't read but are perfectly happy to let your echo chamber make money off using your ignorance to make you mad, has monies in the bill to help business(which include apartments) build electric infrastructure.
      Modern EV charge quicker the you seem to think.
      And far, far, cheaper then gasoline

  38. OMG, this thread is so full of blatant bias, misinformation and lies. You should all be ashamed.

    "is still stuffed with Democratic wish list items,"
    Yes, thing that help everyone and strengthen infrastructure. The real question is why Republicans don't want to do that.

    ANd because not a single conservative I have talked to seem to know what Infrastructure is:
    "Infrastructure is the set of fundamental facilities and systems that support the sustainable functionality of households and firms. Serving a country, city, or other area, including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function."

    "over the protectionism "
    Yes, its the American government. They are suppose to use protectionism for the US and it's citizens.

    " Rather than simply a blanket advantage for American companies (which would be bad enough)"
    Why is helping American companies bad? Why do you want foreign corporations to take US money?

    "it is a clear giveaway to the United Auto Workers (UAW). "
    And you don't want American workers to have decent paying jobs. Aren't you a peach.

    You, and you boot licking ilk, are why America infrastructure and manufacture is in terrible shape.

    1. lmao..... 'Terrible Shape'

      Trumps De-Regulation Administration -- USD grows strength, unemployment lowest its ever been since the 60s... etc, etc, etc...

      Biden's Nazism - Massive Inflation, Scarce goods, Massive Debt, Dictative lock-downs, MORE regulation...

      UR the one who is spreading B.S., "so full of blatant bias, misinformation and lies" - as if *reality* wasn't a DEAD GIVE-AWAY.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.