What If Chevy Volts Were Mortgages?

John Ransom
|
Posted: Sep 07, 2014 12:01 AM
What If Chevy Volts Were Mortgages?

Truth001 wrote: No John GWB destabilized the region by marching into Iraq in the first place all in the name of Oil. Obama was only trying to clean up the mess President Bush and VP Cheney left behind. Remember "mission accomplished" 10 years later, 4000+ soldiers dead and 1.5 trillion dollars later. Obama has been trying to avoid another Iraq disaster like every since he has been in office. - The Foreign Policy of the Three Stooges

Dear Comrade Pravda,

How do you explain the destabilization of Libya, then? Or Afghanistan? Or Pakistan? Or Egypt? Or Ukraine? Were those all George Bush’s fault?

And stop blaming oil, corporate America and Dick Cheney for the war. Afghanistan has no oil and we still have troops there.

The truth is that as the rest of the world gets more modern with even Chinese communists embracing capitalism, the Islamic world has struggled to keep up. That’s understandable in a culture where salaaming on a prayer rug could either make you holy or headless.

In the larger scheme, destabilization has been going on in Islam for long before either Bush became president. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld recognized it before you did.

Duh. You’re a liberal.

Somehow people forget that Saddam Hussein failed to comply for over a ten-year period with U.N. sanctions and U.S. cease fire requirements. Iraq, at the same time, was trying to harm American interests, including attempting to assassinate a former president in George H.W. Bush. We already maintained a substantial military presence in Iraq because of the failure of either Hussein or the international community to do something about the clear threat Saddam posed to the rest of the world.

It was impossible for Bush to destabilize Iraq because it had not been stable since…well… before Saddam took over. Military adventures stretching over three decades combined with, as Al Sharpton would say, “whobris” by Saddam made sure that Iraq was the destabilizing force in the Middle East long before Reagan made the fatal mistake of naming Bush the Elder as number two on the ticket.

By a show of hands ask Iraqis if they want Saddam back. Few would. By a show of hands ask Iraqis if they’d prefer to have U.S. troops back. A vast majority would prefer Americans were doing the peacekeeping in Iraq versus ISIS. If, as Obama says, Iraq didn’t want any U.S. troops, then why are we sending them back to Iraq now? By my unofficial count we are getting close to the halfway mark of 2,000 troops that were proposed as a stabilization force that Obama now claims Iraqis didn’t want.

Well, apparently they want them now. Just because Iraqi leaders spoke out against keeping U.S. troops after Obama made it clear he wasn’t going to leave troops there, doesn’t mean that was: 1) the thing they wanted or 2) the thing that was in America’s best interest. The truth is that Obama was so childish when he negotiated that Status of Forces Agreement that he made it impossible for any Iraqi government to keep a stabilization force.

I do remember Obama saying that Al Qaeda was defeated because bin Laden was dead.

And that he saved Detroit. Or that if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor. Or that under his administration no one making under $250,000 would see a tax increase. Or that raising the debt ceiling was wrong, along with budget deficits, the designated hitter rule and birth certificates.

Okay, I see his point on the last.

LogicDesigner wrote: Those $80,000 figures have long since been debunked, mdibrezzo. You will only see them continue to be used by bloggers like John Ransom who are intent on deceiving their readers. Don't be a victim of Ransom's deception by continuing to use that $80,000 figure. - Whatever Happened to the Chevy Volt?

Dear Comrade L(S)D,

Actually no one knows what the realized loss on the Chevy Volt will be because Government Motors won’t tell us. It’s probably higher than $80,000 per car.

Here’s why: The company spent the $80,000 per car in capital costs with intention of selling 60,000 Volts every year. It took them six years to sell about 65,000 them in total. Yet still they have invested more capital in the Volt. But this year they have finally conceded that the Volt won’t be a mass-market success.

That, according to Chevy’s chief market officer, Tim Mahoney, who made the confession to industry insiders. Green Markets Reports says that they’ll probably sell about 2,000 per month. That might be a generous figure. Imagine if the tax credit is pulled, which is likely eventually.

This is a car around which Government Motors once planned their whole survival.

“The Volt’s technology and its recent accolade from Consumer Reports make the Volt a marketing tool for Chevy,” said Alan Batey, vice president for Chevrolet U.S. sales, according to Bloomberg “This vehicle is about more than how many we sell,” Batey said. “This vehicle is a magnet around everything we are trying to do to showcase our brand.”

When something attracts only flies, it’s not a magnet, LSD. I'd call it something else. And so would you.

GM will never, ever get the money they spent on the Chevy Volt back. Ever.

Only they can say what their losses are.

LogicDesigner wrote: Once again, John Ransom lies about the Chevy Volt in order to score political points. He mentions a "Chevy Volt starting a garage fire" when in reality, this never happened. Garage fires happen all the time in this country, and there were two instances where a Volt happened to be parked in a garage when a fire started.- Whatever Happened to the Chevy Volt?

Dear Comrade L(S)D,

That’s why Chevy offered to buy back all the Volts. And recalled them. They always do that when cars don’t start fires in garages.

All you have to read is this to understand: “NHTSA continues to believe that electric vehicles show great promise as a safe and fuel-efficient option for American drivers." That’s the conclusion from the NHTSA report on the Volt. It’s a political statement, not an engineering analysis.

If Chevy Volts were mortgages the Department of Justice would employ the Black Panthers as call center volunteers to institute a civil suit and criminal charges on behalf of Eric Holder who would allege that the mere fact that black people don't buy Chevy Volts is proof of racism. By Ford. 

ericynot1 wrote: I'm feeling sort of immortal. It seems that, no matter how old a comment, Ransom will recycle it. The one from me in today's column dates back to May, 2012, before Romney got spanked. - Whatever Happened to the Chevy Volt?

Dear Comrade Y,

You’re not immortal. It’s part of your delusion.

As most people know—I mean people who can read complex sentences-- since Townhall often pulls comments off the message board before I can get to them, I’m sometimes [;-)] left with few comments to reply to. Too few to do a column, too often.

The whole column was republished, not just your comment.

Geez, you’re an Obama clone. You think it's all about YOU.

DoctorRoy wrote: "Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice." --Dwight Eisenhower - More Swiss Banks Give Eric Holder the One-Finger Salute

Dear Comrade Doctor,

Eisenhower also spent much of his life smoking 4 packs of Camel unfiltered cigarettes per day. Eventually he quit. Which proves that no matter how foolish your behavior, there is always hope.

Except for you. You are doomed.

gszejner wrote: Hard to comment on your article while watching the second beheading of an American journalist, knowing that commentaries like yours guarantee no help from Russia when we need it most against ISIS in Syria and in the Middle East..

Mr. Ransom: I have high regard for most of your opinions, but in this article you exude old imperial cold-war spirit, adversarial to Russia and detrimental to Ukraine and the West. Some of your premises and statements are outright offensive and dangerous. You offend the Russian people from the start by calling Russian Federation an evil empire and Putin, a dictator. You mislead the West and the American people into the belief that Russia is economically weak, in fact weaker than New York or California, therefore it can be easily defeated. Your admission that you advocated the expansion of NATO as the "surest way to secure peace and stability in the region" sounds defeatist and phony at the least.

You Sir are uniquely qualified to address the losses resulting from the misguided Ukrainian venture to the American taxpayers. Best regards. George Szejner. - How to Beat an Evil Empire: Just Do It

Dear Comrade George,

Hey, so why don’t you go live under the benevolent empire being put together by Russian dictator Vlad the Impaler? We’ll all wait here and you can report back your findings on the delights of Mother Russia under Papa Putin.

Yes, I want NATO to expand. It’s one of the most successful and long-lasting military alliances in history. It led to the downfall of the Soviet Union, and outlasted the Warsaw Pact by 25 years.

Why would I not support the expansion of NATO?

You argument is like saying that the reason why crime is up in the city is because the city is thinking about hiring more cops. It’s not the benign intent of NATO countries to keep the peace that caused unrest in Ukraine, but the malevolent intent of Putin who cares nothing for the Russian people.

I’ve made the professional study of Russia and its people much of my work for the last 30 years. I adore the Russian people. I condemn the jerks, like you, who believe that by denying liberty to some, like Russians or Iraqis, that we can somehow make ourselves more free. Because in truth, when we cooperate with the denial of liberty for some, we erode it within our own country. And no: We can’t give liberty to everyone or even anyone. But that doesn’t mean that we have to serve as a ways and means committee for a Russian autocrat who you wouldn’t want to serve.

Marlene57 wrote: so obama is one of our 2 worst presidents. fine - the patriot act and dept. of homeland security were started by bush; "islam is a religion of peace" was said by bush before obama said the same thing. neither bush nor obama deserve any credit or anything and a whole lot of blame for most everything. no, i'm not a democrat and i don't like romney either and i wouldn't vote for him or carson or west or hillary. doesn't matter anyway since the election will be decided before we even vote and will be between one globalist and another. all either party does these days is party... - It Takes a President

Dear Comrade Marlene,

The despair, the despair, save us from the despair, oh, Ron Paul, saintly one.

George Bush wasn’t a saint, but he is a damned fine man, even if I didn’t always agree with his policies.

There are huge differences between George Bush and Barack Obama. Obama is too freaking lazy, too self-absorbed, and too narcissistic to do the hard work for those policies that he wants enacted, like nationalized healthcare. He’s also too much of a liar to share his real agenda with the American people, as is apparent in his foreign policy. While I don’t give him credit for being the evil genius many of my conservative friends do, his foreign policy isn’t just misguided and poorly thought out, but purposefully incompetent. He knows if he shared the American foreign policy he favors, Americans wouldn’t support him. So he “screws up” foreign policy, which leads to the same result that he wishes, counting that Americans will give him the “black guy” discount that they have given him all along with an assist by the media, "He meant well," liberals are saying, "he's just black."

One can’t say the same things about Bush, who by the way is white.

The only thing you can tag George Bush with is not agreeing with his policies.

I pine for the days of George W. Bush.

Conchfritters wrote: "Putin, for his part, does a pretty good imitation of Adolf Hitler in his heyday, getting away with just as much as he can, gobbling up as much territory as possible, before calming the troubled waters with Russian-produced snake oil."

1) Good job with the Hitler comparison. I haven't heard that one before. Seems no one these days compares anyone to Hitler.

2) Gobbling up as much territory as possible? Quite the opposite, actually, they are going in reverse. The USSR used to have 16 States. Today it is down to one (and the small chunk of Georgia they took a few years ago). And seveal of their former "States" have actually joined NATO.

3) Calming the troubled waters with his snake oil? How does that help Russia? Russia needs oil to be at $110 per barrell in order to balance their budget. But Russia's adventures in Ukraine also shaved 20% off of their stock market at one time. I do not envy their position.

The last thing we need to do is make Russia desperate. Their economy is in decline, they truly are a "gas station masquerading as a country", they have a huge population problem as they are not having children and have no immigration, and the second anyone in Russia makes $$, they flee the coutry and go West. Put the war drum away son, someone is going to get hurt. - Prepare for War

Dear Comrade Fritters,

1) I compare people to Hitler when the comparison fits. Putin seems to be using the same strategy Hitler used of fomenting disorder just long enough to get away with it. Hitler did the same thing. The analogy sticks.

My apologies to those of your Democrat friends who use the allusion on people like Republican Paul Ryan, thereby destroying the impact of real comparisons to Hitler and help to devalue the lessons we learn from history, like, you know the Holocaust, which you likely think never happened or otherwise devalue.

2) The Soviet Union was an artificial construct, not a nation-state. It would be like the United States claiming Canada, Mexico, the Central American nations, and Caribbean Islands are part of a great United States of America. It is because Russia is now going back to trying to gobble up those countries, which weren’t theirs to begin with, that made them join NATO. We’ll see in October, but Ukraine has elections then and I’m guessing they’ll want to join NATO just like many of their neighbors. And for the same reason: survival and self determination. 

3) I have no idea what you point is here, but will say that if Putin wants the Russian stock market back up all he has to do is stop making war. If he wants oil to be $110 per barrel to balance his budget maybe he should call his good buddy who knows how to make the seas stop rising. He'll give Putin the same deal.

Russia’s problems are theirs to solve on their own without us appeasing them. They want to stop being a gas station masquerading as a country, then they can stop…doing that.

You have the cause and effect incorrect here. It’s not because we did anything to make Russia desperate, it’s that in their self-inflicted desperation they need to lash out to give vent to their frustration. Ukraine is just their latest victim.

What is it with you liberals always trying to victimize the wrong targets? Russia deserves no sympathy, but I would give them all the help we could if they just stopped their policies of aggression.

Lastly I’m not your son, and I would suggest that instead of worrying about my war drum that you tend to your drum circle.

Because that cool chick on your left? That’s a dude, man.

That’s it for this week.

V/r,

JR