Can you DM me the dealership? Ty!
Can you DM me the sales rep? I didnât think Ohio played ball
Not how this works please stop asking for the info on threads. PM users for that info per guidelines, no guarantee they will provide.
1 Like
What dealer? Will they replicate?
No idea, Trump hasnât killed the $7.5k yet and other Toyota models still have their rebates. Maybe they just switched to a backend incentive to the dealers, otherwise these RZ cars would sit in the lot for a long timeâŚ
1 Like
The week or two before that incentive goes away is going to be perhaps the craziest in LH history. With the IRA it wasnât happening until all of a sudden it happened. With this one I think we will have a week or two notice since it will all be part of a reconciliation bill to help fund the extension of the trump tax cuts.
Brokers will be working 100 hours weeks to move every EV possible.
1 Like
Given the language of the EO, I donât know that I agree with that statement that Trump hasnât killed the $7.5k yet. He has suspended all Inflation Reduction Act spending disbursements, of which the $7500 was part of. I think the fact that some dealers are still offering it is simply because it is already baked into that particular car on the lot. I hope I am wrong since my hybrid lease is expiring soon. But, I expect that next month they will be gone entirely.
2 Likes
Iâm no constitutional law expert, but I donât see how that would survive a legal challenge: all the captives and banks such as US Bank and Ally are legally entitled to those funds until Section 45W of the IRA is actually repealed through legislation.
2 Likes
Legal challenge? Are you serious?
Example: âbirthright citizenshipâ is specific in the Constitution yet apparently the Trump Admin has stated plans on ending it through EO or legislative fiat. The legislation ending the IRA if even needed can be drafted and passed in a day now in light of the make up of the House, Senate and President Trump.
1 Like
The language of the EO states that IRA disbursements are âpausedâ and âshall be reviewed.â It will, most likely, take an act of congress to kill the IRA law, which may not be far behind. Whatever âpausedâ disbursements accrue, until that act of congress, will need to be paid out.
4 Likes
It will be a while until Congress can pass legislation to kill the IRA unless the senate can garner 60 votes. Unlikely. Theyâd have to pass reconciliation in order to kill it with a simple majority in the senate. That will take months.
i wonder if mfgs are going to stack up non ev, but imported inventory before the deadline?
Even if itâs paid out in the end, no one wants to wait with this uncertainty. Some will just not offer it.
1 Like
Great question. Will depend on how the language is written with regard to the tariff. It could be only as of the date the item crossed the border being after enactment, or it could be retroactive as existing inventory but having crossed the border prior to the tariff enactment.
I visited the Solyndra building shortly after their bankruptcy. You know what taxpayer dollars went to? Fossil embedded tile floors. Glass walled conference rooms with windows that could turn opaque on demand. That company flushed a bunch of money down the drain building themselves a nice place to work instead of building competitive solar technology.
What if that same half billion dollars would have gone through consumers instead? They would have bought technology that worked instead of outfitting that office building. Put a domestic content requirement on the consumer dollars, like they tried to do with EVs, and we could have possibly built up a stronger domestic manufacturing base.
Iâm in favor of the United States having a thoughtful industrial policy that develops industries that we need to be in. Iâd argue that EVs, batteries, drones, shipbuilding, and many other key technologies have been neglected for years. Iâm not arguing that what we have now is a âthoughtfulâ policy - but Iâd love us to have one.
2 Likes
Just to play devilâs advocate Iâll explain the constitutional question.
The Constitution says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.â
The question at hand hinges on âsubject to the jurisdiction thereofâ. Who does that cover or not cover.
The Supreme Court precedent here is United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong was born to Chinese citizen parents legally residing in the United States. His citizenship was challenged due to his parentâs citizenship and the Supreme Court affirmed his citizenship. Itâs a long case to read, but Iâll quote the final paragraph of the majority opinion (emphasis added):
⌠whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
The Constitutional question the Trump proposes is that birthright citizenship should not apply to those born of parents either here illegally or parents here legally but temporarily. It is not a question that has previously been answered.
Personally I donât think the administration is likely to win this question, but I acknowledge there is actually a question here to be asked.
As some one who vehemently dislikes the new administration; I wish their arguments were built on a better understanding of the constitution. Youâre right, they should be asking these specific questions. Theyâre just too god damned stupid to do it and I guess thatâs really why I donât like them. Itâs the stupid. They should at least have someone grammar and sanity check their arguments⌠you know, make sure it makes some sense and follows actual physical science.
3 Likes
Not sure there is anything to explain or any âquestion to be decidedâ per the case you cited, US v. Wong Kim Ark, as that SCOTUS opinion still seems to be good law and that question was already answered as was noted almost 100 years later again in Plyler v. Doe:
"[Footnote 10]
Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that â[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . .â (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term âjurisdictionâ was used. He further noted that it was
âimpossible to construe the words âsubject to the jurisdiction thereof,â in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words âwithin its jurisdiction,â in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons âwithin the jurisdictionâ of one of the States of the Union are not âsubject to the jurisdiction of the United States.ââ Id. at 169 U. S. 687."
Iâm not giving legal advice, but a 40 year bench veteran and Ronald Reagan appointee just weighed in:
âIâve been on the bench for over four decades. I canât remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.â
"In a hearing held three days after Mr. Trump issued his executive order, a Federal District Court judge, John C. Coughenour, sided at least for the moment with four states that sued. âThis is a blatantly unconstitutional order,â he said.
âFrankly,â he continued, challenging Trump administration lawyers, âI have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar would state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It just boggles my mind.â
Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
1 Like
I remember back in 2018 Lexus was scared of tariffs on their GXes. Brought in massive amounts of inventory. Well then tariffs were a big nothing burger, and lets just say it became a Summer to remember GX feeding frenzy.
Wonder if we see something along the same lines on evs or other imports.
3 Likes
This is the way. People may not like but but 100% facts.