Not sure if anyone has done this math yet, but if you take the current cost of the Iraq war to date, which is $600 billion, and you divide that by $15000 (to get a $40k Volt down to the current average cost of a car bought in America, which is a little under $25k), you get 40 million, which is the number of Volts you could provide such a discount for. At about 8 million new passenger vehicles a year (cars, trucks and suvs) you could replace every single new car with an electric one for the next 5 years, replacing about 16% of all cars on the road (there are 250 million passenger vehicles in service). If you take the middle estimate of the eventual total cost at 2 trillion, you can multiple that 16% up to 53%.

Just some food for thought when people say we can't quickly replace all the cars on the road with electric ones. Sure we could - we'd just have to stop fighting wars for oil and channel the money towards discounts and renewables...

I'm just happy we are not surrendering like Obama wants us to.

Forget the war, what about the cost of the last 'stimulus package' (read: vote purchasing)?

$150 Billion

That would cover either:
a) 50-75 brand spanking new state of the art nuclear reactors (Increasing our pct of electricity from nukes to close to 40%)
or
b) 10 million electric car subsidies ($15 k per car)
or
c) a combination of a and b.

Ever since George W. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln with the large "Mission Accomplished" sign behind him, the taxpayers of the United States of America have been spending $478,000,000 per day to fight the so-called 'war' in Iraq.
Mission accomplished.

Both the "war" in Iraq and the "stimulus" package are being paid for through deficit spending, not with actual money. Do you want to force our children to pay for this conversion from oil to electric or should be try to incur all the costs now instead of spending our future into bankruptcy?

I'm just happy we are not surrendering like Obama wants us to.

Stupid war declared by a stupid president.

What are we surrendering? Our deficit? Our energy independence? Our environment? The lives of our soldiers?

The only thing Obama wants to surrender is the spoils of the war profiteers, the slime that profits from our dead soldiers.

The "compassionate liberals" make me laugh. They are supposed to be so compassionate but they want to bail on the Iraqi people in a war they are as responsible for getting us into as anyone. They want to shirk their responsibility by acting like they are not responsible. There was a 98% approval rating for going to war. 98% of the Democrats voted for it and they want us to believe the lie, that they were duped because there were no WMD. The truth is, when it was popular the Dems voted for it and when it isn't, they use the excuse that they were lied to. Political expediency. Before 9/11 ever happened, there are quotes form John Kerry, both Clintons, AL Gore, France, the United Nations about WMD being in Iraq. Why? because they had video of Saddam using mustard gas on the Kurds in the North after the Gulf War. Not to mention that they just moved over 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium(that the media ignored).

http://middleeastdesk.org/article.php?id=2460

and there have been others but the media is ignoring it.

Your a political hack if you believe getting into this war wasn't the entire Govt's fault(both Reps & Dems). With that being said, it's our responsibility to end it the right way. We owe that to the people of Iraq. It's the compassionate thing to do. We are actually winning now. The left wing media won't report it because all they want is political power. All they want is to get their candidate in office, and most democrats are like little puppets that want to believe the propaganda.
Finish what we started.

I like him because he really tells it like it is and is doing his part to expose the lazy hazy congress and the other do nothings in the system.
He reported the true deficit is 100 Trillion dollars. It will take 5 to 10 generations to pay off this absurd debt. So maybe if the world is around in 100 years they will have a clean slate. I kind of wish the gov would bankrupt and wipe the slate clean and just start over from scratch with a new way of more conservative in spending form of government. If Obama makes it as president, I really do not think he will be able to play out his fantasy as a change maker. He also really does not have a grip on what it is like to live as a middle or low income family. Worried here his change will enable more harm than good.

There was a 98% approval rating for going to war. 98% of the Democrats voted for it and they want us to believe the lie, ... finish what we started.

This is hardly a board for the discussion of the politics of the war in Iraq. However, I would wonder how you would support your claim that 98% of Democrats voted for it?

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm

For some people, lies are natural. 23 Senators and 133 House members voted against allowing Bush the latitude to invade Iraq, if he were stupid enought to do it. Let's see. 23/100 = 98%?

Only one thing worse than a moron that doesn't understand simple statistics, and that would be a liar who should know better.

My niece, Katelyn, stationed at Baluud , Iraq, was assigned with others of her unit, to be escorted/guarded/ watched out for Martha Raddatz of ABC News as she covered John McCain's recent trip to Iraq. Katelyn and her Captain stood directly behind Raddatz as she queried GI's walking past. They kept count of the GI's and you should remember these numbers. She asked 60 GI's who they planned to vote for, in November, '08.
54 soldier's said John McCain,
4 for Obama and
2 for Hillary. Katelyn called home and told her Mom and Dad to watch ABC news the next night because she was standing directly behind Raddatz and maybe they'd see her on TV. Mom and Dad of course, called and emailed all the kinfolk to watch the newscast and maybe see Katelyn. Well, of course, we all watched and what we saw wasn't a glimpse of Katelyn, but got a hell'ava view of skewed news.
After a dissertation on McCain's trip and speech, ABC showed 5 GI's being asked by Raddatz how they were going to vote in November;
3 for Obama and
2 for Clinton. No mention of the 54 for McCain.

Well it's nice that you can resort to name calling.

Here are qoutes from the Democrats about wmd.

http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=1864_0_1_0_M

W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”—From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998


“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”—From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others


“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities”—From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002


“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”—Madeline Albright, 1998


“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983”—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998


“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.”—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002


“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.”—Robert Byrd, October 2002


“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.”—Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002


“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”—Bill Clinton in 1998


“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.”—Tom Daschle in 1998


“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.”—Dick Gephardt in September of 2002


“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”—Al Gore, 2002


“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”—Bob Graham, December 2002


“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”—Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002


“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”—Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002


“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002


“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”—John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.”—John Kerry, October 9, 2002


“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.”—John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003



“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, United Nations inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. Inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.”—Patty Murray, October 9, 2002


“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”—Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998



As the record clearly shows, if George W. Bush lied about WMD, he was joined by a lot of lying Democrats!

As the record clearly shows, if George W. Bush lied about WMD, he was joined by a lot of lying Democrats!
Yes BigCityCat, of our 435 congressmen & 100 senators, 379 of them bought the lie.
They've all got to go, Democrat and Republican alike.