The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

LMAO

I am grinning ear to ear. Wait until Ryan gets a hold of Biden. There will not be any ass left!

Hear what Biden said in N.C.? Check out Jay Leno

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/10/03/leno-bidens-middle-class-has-been-buried-gaffe-which-candidate-he-cam

From what I have been reading Romney sounded good, but almost everything he said was a lie.  He will score short term points with those who judged on debate style but is getting hammered over his lies. 

I was very thrown off from the first time Romney said "I will not cut taxes on high income earners."  I think that was the whole question of the debate -- how Romney was going to pay for the cuts.

But his campaign has been talking about "cutting taxes 20% across the board" for weeks.

I was dumbfounded.

I think that he probably means "no taxes IN ADDITION to extending the temporary Bush tax cuts."  Obama should have hit hard there.

I got the feeling that Romney was saying what Obama's supporters wanted to hear, even though it was all lies.  I ended up liking Romney a bit more after the debate, but I know from other sources that everything he said was bullcrap.

I think Obama was being too polite and trying not to call out his character as a lying scumbag.  He tried to keep reiterating what he was lying about (stopping short of calling him a liar straight out), and Romney kept denying it.

"The devil is in the details, the angel is in the policy."

Apparently, the policy is not giving details and look good doing it. If that's what you call an "ass kicking", then he won. Somebody else went that route 4 yrs ago. Maybe you've heard of her...

My biggest problem with Romney was his tax plan. He said his plan wouldnt "add" to the deficit. He didnt say it would cut down the debt. Then again, neither side seems to be serious in addressing this.

Obama, didn't do himself any favors by not explaining how his proposals going forward would yield better results.

Style & presentation: Romney won
Substance: draw (as in both were lacking)

Can someone please explain Romney's tax plan to me in plain English? Because I still have no idea what he plans to do.

Don't feel too bad.  Romney still doesn't even know what his tax plan is either. 

I actually felt sorry for the current POS incumbent. Too much lack of eye contact, pouting, staring at the podium while shaking his head and biting his lip, and generally looking like he would rather be somewhere else getting gang raped like he has done to this country. Kinda reminded me of a little child that had done something really bad and now can't look you in the eye cause he knows he fucked up. The leader of a country needs to have somewhat of an alpha personality. Obama doesn't have one ounce of alpha in his body. He seems like a nice enough guy, but also seems to pout and be sissy like also. Anyhow, as I have said before, Obama is in way over his head and can't fix any of this deep shit we're in. Hopefully, it's time to move on to the next one and see if they can help fix what so many before him have fucked up.

For the life of me I cannot see how any intelligent person could support Obama after his horrible fiscal policies, foreign policies, growing of the government, trying to weaken our country by cutting the military and being hell bent on making USA a Socialist country.  I voted for Obama in 2008 based on his promise to cut spending and shrink government. All lies.

You can buy the decoy about the tax issue all you want, but history proves what type of liar Obama is.

I realize I won't change any body's mind, and that is fine, but I think we all want what's best for America. The question really comes down to if you want a proven problem solver with a business background or a lifetime community organizer, politician who has never made a honest nickel.   

I guess this will be an issue we will just agree to disagree on, and that is fine. I respect your differing opinion. He fooled me too.

I'm still waiting for you guys to explain Romney's plan.

^ Because "small government" is not everyone's biggest concern.

I'd like growth of government in the area of healthcare.
I'd like reduction of government in areas, like military.

I don't think that makes me a bad person or an idiot.

Details of all of Romney's planned policies are on his website. They talk about it on the radio all the time, but I never took the time to read them. Let us all know. lol

I have hated the tax system all my life. I would think anything would be an improvement over what we have.

I thought it was pretty self explanatory but maybe you weren't paying attention.

I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.

Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. . . . I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

(Don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today,” Romney said. The top 5% income earners pay approximately 60% of all taxes.) - this is another quote from him in an earlier interview.

And number three, I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families.

That’s really all there is to it. Romney claims that he’ll keep taxes the same for the rich; cut taxes for everyone else and not add to the deficit.

How will he balance the budget?


In short Romney wants to create an environment that affords business to grow so it can employ more people. Adding more employed people adds to the tax base which in turns adds more dollars to the federal coffers. Don’t raise taxes, raise more employed people.

The one thing Romney said last night summarizes how I feel is this ...
I haven't had a raise in 5 years, have had my salary cut, and yet I pay more for everything. Although I haven't lost my job I am significantly lower than where I was 4 years ago as is most people. The tax relief I have gotten has not come close to helping make up the difference. I would gladly give it back to have the workforce pick back up so that the county could collect taxes so we would have money etc.

BTW ... I didn't hear Romney say anything last night that I haven't already heard.  I've heard other things from other people saying he said but never Romney.

^^

I agree that what Romney said last night was the most sensible and rational I've ever heard him.  But it's just not the tune he's been playing since he started running.

This is off of Mitt Romney's own website: "Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates" http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

You can't claim you'll cut taxes for everybody and then get to the debate and say you won't cut taxes for the wealthy.  That's the whole issue.  What he is saying at the debate is not the same he's been saying all along up to the debate.

Nice sound bite.  Real short on details.


Okay, so we got two items.  The afordable health care act and PBS.  That is not going to balance the budget.  What else is on that test?  Military? Social Security? The FDA? 

So his plan is to get rid of Obama's health plan and kill PBS? Got it.

That explains nothing. This is generalizations. When pressed on how it is going to be implemented and the actual numbers, both Romney and Ryan waffle. They refuse to specifically spell out who will pay what, and what deductions will be removed to fund it.
This is what everyone wants to know, what is it going to cost, and what deductions are going away to make it work?

That's funny coming from a group who's whole plan was "change and hope" 4 years ago.  I think that's a big issue for Obama now because unlike a professional wrestler or preacher, he can't just sling around cool terms. He has a record that he has to defend.

I literally stopped watching about 10 minutes into the debate, because every time Romney opened his mouth, I found myself saying "bullshit" to the TV screen...

Let me say that I am actually surprised that Romney had as much of an impact as he did. I mean I'm a true believer that most people are going to vote one way or the other regardless of the facts. It's that true middle group who both sides are fighting for. That goes for both sides.  Today I had lunch with a very good democratic atheist friend who I'd say is upper middle class. While he hasn't flopped he came away very open to Romney's ideas and I would have bet money he would have been one of the ones who didn't hear a thing said last night.

What are all these lies that Romney told last night ? Anybody ?

Run the tape back, and place quotation marks around each instance where Romney spoke...

LOL, I could say that about all politicians. But seriously, can anyone point to "specific" lies told ?

It's not that I'm concerned about lies.  It's about positions that change day to day.

He is on the stump talking about cutting tax rates across the board by 20%.
Then he claims he won't cut taxes for the wealthy.
 
Which is it?  And why is it that we aren't sure?   You can't just change it up at the debate and say something else before and after.

Not a tax person, but, I don't believe marginal tax rates are the same thing as tax brackets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rate#Marginal

Yeah, cuz even if everything he said had a mathematical proof of its truth, you'd be moved.

Give us a break. You have to be rational and open-minded for your opinion to even count. You're as dogmatic as they come.

From what I heard is that he would cut actual taxes on everyone and lower the exemptions, deductions, and loopholes so that it evens out to everyone still paying the about the same. But I could be wrong.

Off the top of my head...
1) Obama's interpretation of Romneys plan
2) Obama saying companies get tax breaks for outsourcing to China
3) Obama saying that AARP supported Obamacare (they strongly denied that today)

They did support it.  Today, they didn't deny that.  They just didn't like their name being used politically, as if they were fully supporting Obama.

Obama lost the debate again, he lost all his debates against hillary in the primaries 4 years ago and he lost all the debates against mccain 4 years ago .. my question  is .. so what?

statistically speaking debates are irrelevant when it comes to moving opinion.

People in general have a massive case of confirmation bias, people supporting romney won't budge over something a secretly muslim socialist kenyan says and people supporting obama won't budge over anything a flip flopping etch-a-sketch magic underwear liar says.

That's the reality of this debate.

just on the facts of the debate (not that facts matter in debates) but just for the sake of discussion, romney was either making them up on the spot, or was trying to play word games about what "lower" and "taxes" mean.

I'm sure you could just go to some site like politifact.com and check out everything. I didn't watch the debate but a friend of mine was streaming it over XBOX live and he said they had real-time politifact pop-ups that would tell you the lies/truths being spoken. Interesting. I read that most of what Romney said was a lie, but I'm sure Obama had his fair share of it as well. I'm not voting for either of them, as I'll just vote for a 3rd party since I think they're both quite bad.

I've read that and keep hear that too. The funny thing is it's all liberals who are saying it just as I argued before the debates that what liberals keep saying was false.  Many things keep getting said by Romney through Obama's team yet I haven't heard Romney say it.

From CNN money today about the facts ...



I don't know how you spell out exact details of any plan in two minutes. I know Obama continually went over three minutes the other night but even still, that isn't enough either.

My question is this. Who the heck cares what rich people pay as long as they themselves are getting a fair break to succeed? I don't get that "coveting" philosophy at all. 

You may as well stay home and stay in bed then because your vote literally will not count.

^^^ Oh, I know. Two things: I didn't want to be labeled as "the problem" by those who voted and I didn't; and the only way to get another party involved is by having more and more people every election voting for a 3rd party. I doubt it would happen anytime soon. This is only the third election I would be able to vote in.

You don't have to.  You can spell out the exact details in a memo released by the campaign to the media.  It can be any length you like.  Until he does that he doesn't have a plan.  To quote Walter Mondale, quoting Wendy's to Hart.  "Where's the beef?"

I agree with Chris Matthews and don't like the word "lie" because it ends the conversation.

But that said, the two big things I see from Romney are the 20% tax drop for everyone (including wealthy) -- he says he won't do that.  On the trail and on his website, it says he will.

The other thing is that he says his plan does cover pre-existing condition.  IT DOES NOT.  Fact.  His campaign even admitted that he "misspoke" when answering that question.

And when asked repeatedly what deductions he would get rid of and how he would fund it, he has nothing. When you start talking about getting rid of deductions, everyone starts getting nervous.

Concerning Romney's 'lies'. Here is a great article about one of his comments and the 'truthiness' of it. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/1004/Presidential-debate-101-Is-Romney-right-about-716-billion-in-Medicare-cuts

Quote from the end of the article:

"In the end, Obama really is cutting $716 billion from Medicare, that's true."

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/7655/large/fire_big_bird.jpg?1349357417)

I haven't seen anything nearly as tangible as math come out of Romney's mouth. All I've heard is how we should trust that he'll do a better job than Obama did.  The "please don't think about this" underneath all that rhetoric is the simple and indisputable fact that the Republican party spent the last four years in the most overt and concerted act of political sabotage in the history of the two-party political system, just so they could come back in 4 years and say "see how bad he did?"and get back into office again.


My dog wouldn't even vote for Romney...

Bottom line...Until I can look at a Republican candidate without thinking "This elitist piece of shit wants the rich to get richer and the Church to dictate how I live my life," I cannot consider voting for them.  Intolerance of others and adherence to an antique work of fiction holds no appeal to me.

The only other country that I can think of that pays for TV stations is Cuba. LOL Govt. has no business supporting PBS or any other TV station. PBS makes millions on merchandise sales. those

What a shelter life you live if you have never heard of the BBC.   :o

A partial list of countries besides the UK, USA and Cuba. 

Canada
Hong Kong
Israel
India
Japan 
South Korea
Malasia
Napal
Pakistan
Czech
Denmark
France
Germany
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Netherland
Poland
Spain
Canada
Australia
New Zeland
Argentia
Chile
Venezuela
Costa Rica

AND MANY others.  Granted most of those countries also provide heath care for their citizens thus viewed by you as Marxist. 

this is really the problem with so called "conservatives"  .. it's a mixture of ignorance and gullibility. If hannity or rush says something it's believed, if facts are available and presented they're disregarded. I promised my wife i'd work on being less judgmental. I guess i'm not doing that good of a job at it. Just apply some logic to what you're saying please ...

The facts are this country is running at an unsustainable debt and the present administration has added 6 trillion to it in less than 4 yrs. and something needs to change. There will be some very difficult decisions ahead on what to cut and what not to cut.

I really have nothing against supporting PBS or another station.....just as soon as the budget is balanced and the debt is addressed. Fair? 

I think the FACT Fau was refering to was you stated that only two countries, the US and Cuba had publicly funded broadcasting when that is totally false.

As for your new claims.  The 6 trillion is higher that reality, it is a bit less than 5 trillion.  Also of that most can NOT be attributed to the policies of Obama.  Athough about 1 trillion of it can be.  About 4 trillion can be attributed to the policies under the Bush adminstration which came into office with a balanced budget due to the policies under the Clinton administration.

As for whether that debt is susptainable is actually an opinion not a fact.  What is a fact is out debt was considerably higher than that as a % of GDP in the late 1940's which saw a huge economic boom.

I do agree we need to lower the debt.  Firing Big Bird won't solve the problem however. 

Public debt is an accounting construct. As long as people want to buy treasury notes, our debt could be 100x higher.

Balancing the budget and eventually lowering the debt are issues that hopefully we can all agree on. There is no single expenditure that will act as the "golden bullet". It will take cuts from many areas.

I hear the GOP say taxing the rich more will only do "this much" and the Dems say cutting funding to PBS will only do "this much." So? Do it. Would love to see a flat tax, say 18-20% after the first 25-30K (something like that). That would end a lot of debate.

I had been a Dem all my life and voted for Obama. I changed affliation 1 1/2 yrs. ago after it was obvious I had been lied to. I honestly believe Obama is a Socialist muslim and putting the blame on Bush for him running up the debt is really getting F ing old.

Romney was right, he should have let GM go through bankruptcy and get union concessions in able to become competitive again. It is only a matter of time until GM has their hand out again, and Joe Taxpayer now own millions of stock only a moron would buy.    

Le sigh....swooning here, Sunstroke.

Ok, dude. I'm not going to get nasty here. BUT can you please, for the fuck of shit, explain why you think Obama is a Muslim.
WARNING: If I smell any sort of xenophobic, racist fuckery I will call you out on it.

Ok...GO!

With GM losing a declining average of $49K per vehicle, it's business as usual in Detroit. Given time, GM will be in the same situation they were a few years ago. The government should have let them all sink....

I am unwilling to accept deficit reduction as a serious political issue until the right is willing to accept substantial tax increases as part of the solution.

I would be happy to accept a deal that had $1 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts.  If you're serious about the deficit, prove it.

Well, I am unwilling to accept a tax increase. Why don't all the people who are for tax increases start sending their own money to the government and see how many actually do it, ha ha. I suspect the people who want tax increases are the ones who don't really pay any taxes and receive shit from the government in one form or the other. Give you own money away, not other peoples.....

Please provide evidence to back up your claim that GM is losing "$49K per vehicle."

You are misstating the (also false) claim that GM loses $49K per Chevrolet Volt (http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0910/Plug-in-profit-woes-Chevy-losing-49K-per-Volt-model).  It costs GM $20k-32k to build each Volt, and the car retails for $40k.  So how did they arrive at a $49k loss?  Well, the development program for the Voltec powertrain (which is also being used in other cars (http://www.cadillac.com/elr-electric-car.html)) cost GM around $1.2 billion, and GM had sold ~21,500 Volts, so therefore, if you add the R&D costs to the ACTUAL costs, GM "loses" $37k-49k per car sold.

The problem with that idiot math is that by this logic, GM lost OVER ONE BILLION DOLLARS on the first Volt sold, and lost ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS EACH on the first 10 Volts sold, and lost TEN MILLION DOLLARS EACH on the first 100 sold.  Only a complete moron would use this kind of gorilla accounting.

I sure would like to know how much Apple "lost" on the first 100 iPhones!

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D <---- that is all

My favorite quote on statistics... “People commonly use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post; for support rather than illumination.” 

Personally, I think that anyone who accepts a partisan number without reviewing the equation behind it deserves to play the fool.  Unfortunately, those fools are allowed to vote.



Ah, Buddha-babe... You and I have always had very similar opinions in regards to rights, freedoms, and how one human being should treat another human being.  Along with your naturally smokin' hot perkiness (The judges love it when you're perky), it is the part of you I appreciate the most. ;)

That's exactly why I used "declining average" when describing the situation with the failed volt. The sales are nowhere near what they expected to sell. R&D is a cost associated with producing the vehicle and until it is recovered GM has not made one cent of profit on these silly vehicles. Given the low profit margin on these vehicles and all the idiot math on the internet. You tell me how many volts they will have to sell in order to recoup the entire cost or R&D and production on these pieces of shit. You are assuming that they will eventually sell enough in the future to recoup all of the taxpayers investments on the volt, they may well do that. Then again, they may not. AS OF TODAY, the volt is a loser. Only a moron would compare Apple and GM. Furthermore, if Apple iPhones were selling as slow as the volt then they may well have cut their losses and moved to their next endeavor.

That's why you and your type sound so silly. Because statistics are only good if you use them for your own purposes. If anyone else uses them, you make up some nonsense like you spouted above. The fact of the matter is that you don't know shit. I worked for GM for 10 years. I know about how they manage and run things, and it hasn't changed. Let me know when they make profit on that "green" turd volt, however long that will take, if ever. Then I will happily retract my statement. They will be begging for more money before too long, count on it !!!

Then you don't understand how car manufacturing works.

Every new car "loses money" if you do the math the way you are, which is why NO CAR COMPANY uses that kind of shortsighted, pointless logic.  If Toyota thought like you do, they would have pulled their (Japanese-gov't subsidized) Prius from the market when it was losing money for the first three years.  And the Prius wouldn't be the #3 selling car in the world today. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-29/toyota-prius-escapes-niche-to-surge-into-global-top-three.html)

Do you see the problem with your logic?

You claim that GM is "losing money" on each Volt sold.  If they are "losing money" on each Volt, how can they possibly make that up through volume?  Shouldn't they just stop selling them now?

The fact of the matter is that GM is making a hefty profit on each Volt sold.  Yes, they'll have to sell a lot of them (or the other cars that use the Voltec powertrain) to fully recoup the R&D costs, but GM understood that from the start.  The Volt is currently the top-selling plug-in vehicle by a wide margin (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-02/gm-volt-toyota-plug-in-prius-buoy-u-dot-s-dot-rechargeable-car-sales), selling roughly as many units in 2012 as all of its plug-in competition combined.  It's going to be just fine.

The real secret here is that the right wants GM to fail, which is why they keep insisting that GM give up on a highly-profitable car that's leading its segment by a huge margin.  Virtually everyone in the automotive industry agrees that the Volt is one of the best cars made by an American company in many, many decades... but then again, if you can gleefully ignore the overwhelming majority of scientists on evolution and climate change, ignoring their opinion of a car you don't want to like should be a walk in the park.

I'll try and answer for him since he won't / can't.  Ahem ...

Cuz he's "a black" with a weird first, middle and last name.  Also, he was IS like a black panther or something like that, possibly related to Malcolm X AND Huey P. Newton.  And finally, cuz Fox-Rush-Hannity-News said so.

 :) 

"Warning", ROTFLMFAO. That's so scary !!!!!


Typical, more race baiting I see by the libs and minorities.

Typical, more complaints I see by neo-cons and old people.

Don't change the subject, we were laughing about Obama getting his ass handed to him, stay on track. The bleeding hearts are the ones making excuses and complaining about Obama getting is sissy ass whipped in the debate. That is what the OP was about anyhow, ha ha ha.

I didn't change anything.  Was also interested in an explanation to your peoples' incredibly ignorant and xenophobic claims ... made by the OP himself so how about you keep up, buddy. 

So much hate and anger.  You must be a hit at parties.

Was OP's original post(^^^above) incredibly ignorant and xenophobic ? I think your making shit up. Unless of course you think "LMAO" is xenophobic, ha ha, lmfao.... You know it's funny. Obama, Libs, and blacks must be perfect. I have noticed that if you point out even the smallest thing negative about them, even if 100% true, you are labeled a racist and the truth is ignored. Even blacks that see these things and have the courage to speak up are labeled "uncle toms".

Nice try, you're wrong again. I have no hate or anger for anyone that I can think of. In fact, I'm happy as shit right now laughing my ass off at you. Now sober up and get back to living your only reality of playing the helpless victim.

badger6, I'm still waiting for you to explain how GM is losing 49k on every vehicle they are selling, as you claimed.

Take your time.

And that's fine.  But I don't want to hear people like you complaining about the deficit, when you aren't willing to do anything about it.

And yet you're happy to insist on spending cuts for programs you don't care about.

A person who was sincere about reducing the deficit would be willing to accept both spending cuts and tax increases; you attack the problem from both ends.  But like most conservatives, you don't actually care about the deficit: it is merely a political hammer that you swing around to try to enact cuts in programs that benefit people that you don't particularly like.

Find the conservative that understands that tax cuts increase the deficit and you'll find someone who honestly cares about reducing our nation's debt.  Good luck with that, though.

I'm pretty sure this is the case, but I'm waiting for him to explain. It's one thing to say that you don't agree with the president's policies or the way he's running the country. It's a whole other thing to insist that he is a secret Muslim.

Further, if he is a Muslim so what?

Obama hasn't passed a budget in God knows how long. We've been passing stop-gap spending measures to keep the country going. If you expect math out of a candidate, by the way, you're dreaming. The plans as given by McCain and Obama last election never came to fruition, and they wouldn't have even if Obama had every seat of congress at his command. These things just don't happen.

Here's a question though - could it really be worse than this? Our economy is known for it's dynamism, yet, the unemployment rate stuck above 8% for 44 months, even after Obama said that the stimulus was needed to hold the rate BELOW 8%. In short, we spent a ton of money on a bunch of boondoggles (which, Obama later admitted, were not shovel-ready, and therefore, mostly a waste) and still had a terrible time.

So, how does it get worse than an elevated unemployment level, subsequent to a massive, boondoggle spending program that failed.

The best way to determine what Romney will do is to consider his previous run as governor of Massachusetts. In MA, [t]hrough a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes,[182] the state achieved surpluses of around $600–700 million during Romney's last two full fiscal years in office, although it began running deficits again after that. (admittedly from Wikipedia, because I am too lazy to go directly to wherever the public docs are available). His actions had some unfortunate consequences: the cuts in state spending put added pressure on localities to reduce services or raise property taxes, and the share of town and city revenues coming from property taxes rose from 49 to 53 percent.[168][182] The combined state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased during Romney's governorship.[168] He did propose a reduction in the state income tax rate that the legislature rejected.[192]

Anyway, I can't imagine that he'd do differently. You do what you know. If he's fuzzy on specifics, so the hell what. Is Obama always clear? Heck no! After all, it was his ally in the HoR that said "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

Next: sabotage? How about the majority of the "loyal opposition" voting for a war, then jumping across the aisle and berating it the minute they could suck up votes for it. EVERY party does this, you are just myopic because of your preconceptions.

Anyway - moving on.


Your typical rapier wit.

Allow me to reply on your level: until I can look at a Democrat without thinking, "this jerkwad wants to run over the Constitution and consolidate more power into the federal government, all while allowing the public morality of this country to turn into a substance less palatable than Sunstroke's dog's excretions, I cannot consider voting for them." Pumping the imaginary lever of intolerance, while being intolerant themselves, and adherence to fallacious economic and moral theories from 150 years ago holds no appeal for me.

And this is precisely what I mean by the sadness that is the polarized politics of today. The Republicans are not the enemy, Sunstroke. Neither are the Democrats. That you can't even THINK of voting for a Republican because you're so adhered to democrat propaganda is scary. I could vote for a Dem, assuming they were flexible on some positions. I've stated so on this board. I would welcome compromise on things like gay marriage, if the other side would too. I would expect the same from an educated man such as yourself. But I guess I ask for too much from the "tolerant" crowd. So, go swoon w/ Buddha. Sheep of the same color wool deserved to get fleeced together.

It's tough to pass things like budgets when you have the opposition filibustering at literally record rates. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinion/zelizer-congress-polarization/index.html)  Now, you might be inclined to respond with something about the 9 months (out of four years, mind you) where the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate.  And in kind, I would ask:  how many Presidents have been able to pass any kind of legislation with 100% of the Senate opposition party dedicated to filibustering at a record rate?  No President has ever faced this kind of intransigence.

There is a world of difference between offering detailed plans that are unlikely to be passed, and refusing to offer specifics on your plans because even you know they are mathematically impossible.

McCain & Obama's plans may have been unlikely to get sufficient congressional support, but at least they were mathematically possible.  Romney's (tax) plan is not.

As long as all the people who oppose the gov't helping people with social programs stop using 529, the morgage deduction, educational credits, student loans etc. 

^^^ Relax, I'm cooking and watching football  ;D

10 Years in the business, I think that I have a pretty good grasp of the numbers. How long have you work in the auto industry ?


You are correct. All new car lines lose money until the sales catch up to the money investment. I also think you can agree that you can't compare Toyota, who is a pioneer in the hybrid movement to GM, a bankrupt company. A company, might I add, that was basically forced by it's new creditor, the US Government, to adopt this silly "green" agenda. Personally having knowledge of how GM cooks the books, it is of no surprise to me that they deny losing any money on these over priced pieces of shit.


How can they make that up through volume ? OK, how can I make this simple for you. For every car they sell, they have a profit, or claimed profit that goes toward total cost of production, ie - parts, labor, materials, R&D. The more cars you produce the more you spread out the total cost to produce each car. The average cost to produce declines on every car you produce. Once they produce and sell a certain amount of cars they will break even and eventually make a profit. GM in no way makes a profit until all costs associated with production are paid. Not sure of the details, but I'm sure that they are floating the money and incurring interest on said debt also.


I think you are confusing fancy accounting with profits, if you worked in the auto industry you would know the finer points.

First, a good portion of the sales is from fleet sales with a razor thin margin = no profit.

Second, you cite a $40k retail price and good sales. Retail price in the car business is irrelevant. With tax credits and incentives you could get over $10k off sticker. Buying a new model car with supposed new technology that far below sticker doesn't inspire confidence in sales or resale value.

Third, a $7,500 tax bribe from the government to buy the volt. Which by default makes the volt market artificially propped up. And the fact that after the tax credit, which expires after 200,000 sales, GM will either sell fewer Volts at the same profit margin, or the same number of Volts at a much lower profit margin.

Fourth, GM has recently increased the sluggish sales of the volt through a low payment subsidized lease for around $9k total payout over 2 years. Now they may claim a initial profit on the sale. I guarantee you that the car won't be worth the residual value at the end of the 24 month period. How many of these post lease volts will GM be able to sell at an artificially inflated residual price, with no customer tax credit, and more competition from a growing market segment. They will take residual loss writedowns on these returned leases, mark my words.



No I suspect that the right doesn't want GM to fail and get more taxpayer money to keep them afloat. The real secret is that volt sales are artificially propped up in order to achieve the illusion of profits and success from a failed attempt to prop up a bankrupt company that should have been allowed to fix it's own problems like other companies are left to do. Most Americans are not stupid, gullible, or rich enough to be fooled by this "green" agenda. Woo, fucking hoo, 35-40 miles before the battery dies and you have to start burning gas again. That doesn't justify the $10-20 difference in price. The cost outweigh the benefit for the average citizen. I just read that the average income of a Chevy volt buyer is $170,000 a year. Really ? They gonna sell buckets'O volts, ha ha. The rich get a taxpayer subsidized tax break on an over priced American "sedan" and the rest of us get fucked, again. So I will agree with you that with successful products the R&D isn't really a concern. In the current economy, with jobs and wages the way they are, the artificially propped up CHEVY VOLT is too expensive to build and too expensive to buy. You want to support GM ? Go buy a Chevy Cruze Eco, $12-15k cheaper. It would take 10-12 years for the volt to catch up on upfront cost savings. If not, go buy a number of other cars that beat the volt by 10 + years on upfront cost savings.

it's easy to "win" a debate when you change your stances on positions on the podium....

This is the same guy who complains that not enough of his female co-workers are helping with the lifting of heavy objects.  And now you are representing yourself as an auto industry expert on automobile R&D amortization?  Really?

This is like a fry cook at McDonald's citing his extensive experience in the agricultural industry.

 (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=19803.0)Ironic that you laud Toyota for being a "pioneer in the hybrid movement" while simultaneously bashing GM for the one car they have produced that's more advanced than any hybrid Toyota makes (and sells better than Toyota's plug-in hybrid).

Please explain how the U.S. Government "forced" GM to build the Volt when GM had already started the program and produced a prototype (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/gm_introduces_e.html?cid=27360790) nearly 2 years before the Bush administration issued them a loan with the requirement of a new business plan.

But you're claiming that they are losing money on each car sold.  So if you are LOSING MONEY when you sell a car, how can you turn a profit by selling MORE of them?

They are obviously MAKING MONEY when they sell the cars.  Your own explanation ("once they sell a certain amount of cars they will break even and eventually make a profit") clearly shows this.

The "GM loses money on each Volt sold" lie is a lie. The "each Volt sold" part is what makes it inescapably a lie.  You can argue that GM has lost money on the Volt (as a model line), but you CANNOT argue that GM loses money on each Volt sold, because that's a lie.

Please tell me exactly what percentage of Volts delivered are to fleet sales.  Oh, wait, you don't know, because you literally just made that up.

With the exception of incentives, none of these things have anything to do with GM's profit per Volt.

...or, their costs will go down and they will sell at a similar profit margin, like nearly every other piece of technology ever made.

While your attempts to predict the future through your crystal ball are somewhat entertaining, the issue at hand is your claim that GM is "losing $49k on each Volt sold" TODAY.

The average one-way commute distance for Americans is 16 miles (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098&page=2#.UHKAmUKieik).  The fact that the Volt's 40-mile all-electric range exceeds the average two-way American commute distance is not a coincidence or accident.  (Compare that to the Volt's most direct competitor, the plug-in Prius, which gets only 11 all-electric miles. (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/02/prius-20120228.html))

I see you are picking apart posts again and selectively trying to make yourself much much "smarter" than you actually are.


Obviously, you missed the whole point of that thread, gender discrimination. Oh yeah, I forgot, the only discrimination you give a shit about is when it benefits black people. Anyhow, what does one have to do with the other ? Not like you know me or what I have done in the past. With no reservation, I can say with 100% certainty that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I never represented myself as an "auto industry expert", those are your words not mine. I worked in the auto industry for 10 years, that's a fact. On a daily basis I dealt with internal GM information and financial information. I think that gives me a bit more insight than you.

Again, how long did you work in the auto industry ?


I'm sure you would know about working at McDonald's, good job.



And we all know that prototypes always come to market, don't we. If you think for one minute that the government had nothing to do with GM's new and failing "green" agenda, you are blind to reality and/or naive.


You are arguing semantics with me. At the end of the day, it is expenditures vs revenue. Fixed costs are amortized over time by how many units you sell. For each unit you sell, your fixed costs come down a little bit.  The cost is spread over the life of the product, no one is disputing that. The problem is that no one knows the life cycle of this product line. GM could discontinue the volt at any time. Given that fact, the only way to get a current accurate assessment of the taxpayers investment, is to figure all expenditures vs all revenue at the current time. The Chevy volt is only under the microscope because taxpayer money has been spent to produce it and sales of the Volt is far under expectations. Otherwise, no one would care.


And since GM is in the business of selling cars, Doug Parks just said that they are not making any money selling cars.

So tell me how many vehicles GM needs to sell to break even ?




There again, you literally don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I don't need to make anything up for you to make yourself look silly.

GE has ordered a fleet of 12,000 volts to be delivered by 2015 http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/11/officially-official-general-electric-ordering-25-000-electric-v/ (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/11/officially-official-general-electric-ordering-25-000-electric-v/) . Compared to year-to-date sales through August of 13,500, well below the 40,000 cars that GM originally had hoped to sell in 2012. GM sold 7,671 Volts in 2011, which was well below GM CEO and Chairman Dan Akerson's target of 10,000 units. So Chevy has sold a total of around 21,500 volts.
GE CEO has also stated that they are going to fleet purchase 50,000 vehicles total http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/chevy-volt-ayn-rand-opinions-patrick-michaels_2.html (http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/16/chevy-volt-ayn-rand-opinions-patrick-michaels_2.html). 

Then again, The Department of Defense is going to buy volts in a fleet of 1,500 electric vehicles http://www.stripes.com/news/military-adding-more-electric-vehicles-to-fleet-1.184928 (http://www.stripes.com/news/military-adding-more-electric-vehicles-to-fleet-1.184928) . As far as fleet goes, I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg. But then again, I just made all that shit up on my own, LMFAO..........


The only reason any of this is being examined is because taxpayer money is at stake. Regardless if the money is lost on the front end on losses on the vehicles themselves or on the back end through the taxpayer funded tax rebate doesn't matter. It's all lost tax money regardless....


The costs are going to drop $7500 ? Maybe with an included window sticker the says "batteries not included", ha ha. How long will that take ? How much interest on the debt will offset the lower costs ?  Have new iPhones gotten cheaper ?


Yes, up until TODAY each unit has lost money. TODAY, not future of sales that aren't guaranteed, all sales up until TODAY. If they stopped making them TODAY, they would have lost approx. $49K per vehicle. They will also lose money TOMORROW on the artificially high residual values they have had to adopt in order to offer low lease rates to artificially inflate the sales numbers.



It's a moot point. It will be a very long time before any plug in vehicle is successful in this country. Shit, regular hybrids aren't all that successful. GM probably sells more Impalas or Malibus in a month than all of the volts sold this year.

So tell me again how many vehicles GM has to sell to recoup the taxpayers money on their green experiment ?
And also, tell me how long it would take a volt buyer to recoup the cost difference of a comparable gas powered vehicle with the savings on mileage ?

^^^Figured that I would make some more shit up.


Just a few companies loading their fleets with volts with plenty more to follow. All padding sales numbers and making little to no profit.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/07/nypd-to-get-first-chevy-volt-police-cars-/1#.UHYT51HYFa8 (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2011/07/nypd-to-get-first-chevy-volt-police-cars-/1#.UHYT51HYFa8)

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110525/CARNEWS/110529891 (http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110525/CARNEWS/110529891)

http://inhabitat.com/zipcar-adds-the-chevy-volt-to-its-chicago-fleet/2012-chevrolet-volt-10/ (http://inhabitat.com/zipcar-adds-the-chevy-volt-to-its-chicago-fleet/2012-chevrolet-volt-10/)

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/01/07/enterprise-rent-a-car-chevy-volt-rental/ (http://green.autoblog.com/2011/01/07/enterprise-rent-a-car-chevy-volt-rental/)

So a grand total of 500 of the 13,500 sold are fleet cars or less than 4%. 

Lest you think that I stopped responding because you are making solid points:

You claimed that "a good portion of [Volt] sales is from fleet sales."  I asked you what percentage of Volts delivered are to fleet sales.  Your responses have consisted almost entirely of statements from various organizations as to their plans for future Volt purchases.  In other words, you have no idea what percentage of Volts delivered (<---this word is important) are to fleet sales.

There have been more than 20,000 Volts sold in the U.S. (link (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11723219/1/all-electric-cars-are-not-the-same-volt-vs-leaf.html)).  Taking the most generous interpretation possible of all fleet Volts actually delivered in all of the links you provided, I arrived at a total of 324 Volts sold.  Is 1.62% a "good portion" of 20,000 cars?

Furthermore, I don't really have much interest in earnest discussion of this topic with someone who misrepresents themselves as an professional subject matter expert in such a dishonest (or delusional) manner.   I would feel the same way about a person who was a cashier at Walgreens for 20 years and claimed to be an expert on pharmaceutical development on that basis.

Portion or Percentage, more retarded semantics. Did you bother to check the dates on the articles from the various organizations. If the articles were from 2010 and 2011, we are in the future.


I guess you missed the two or three other links that I kindly provided to show that the fleet numbers are inflating the sales numbers. Fleets of 12,000 and 50,000 are mentioned and those articles are from 2010 and 2011. The 12,000 units is supposed to be all delivered by 2015. You might be smart enough to figure out that they won't get them all at once and it will take time to get them all.



Stop lying and be a man instead of a little boy, you're embarrassing yourself.

I said :

So kid, how does my above statement say anything about professional expert ?

How long have you worked in the auto industry ?

Tell me again how many vehicles GM has to sell to recoup the taxpayers money on their failed green experiment ?

Tell me how long it would take a volt buyer to recoup the cost difference of a comparable gas powered vehicle with the savings on mileage ?

Tell me how many people can afford this vehicle if the median income of all volt buyers is $170,000 ?

BTW, if you have no interest in replying to a thread, THEN BOUNCE. Take your ass kicking like a man, not a little boy. That goes for all threads for that matter. Either way, no one cares what you do because you are insignificant. Have a great day  ;)