Hey Obama! Way to help out the Auto industry!

[Cajuncowboy]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/26/obama-issue-memoranda-expected-far-reaching-effect-auto-industry/

Freakin' idiot!

[TheCount]

Yes, how dare he fulfill promises he made while running for the office he now holds, what an idiot.

If the automakers were capable of doing this stuff on their own, they wouldn't be doing quite as badly as they are now, but while foreign manufacturers were busy making small efficient cars, we were cranking out Escalades and Hummers.

Domestic manufacturers are already moving this way anyway. All this does is ensure the Chevy Volt doesn't end up being the new EV1. It helps save them from themselves.

[Cajuncowboy]

Yes, how dare he fulfill promises he made while running for the office he now holds, what an idiot.

If the automakers were capable of doing this stuff on their own, they wouldn't be doing quite as badly as they are now, but while foreign manufacturers were busy making small efficient cars, we were cranking out Escalades and Hummers.

Wow! Talk about ignorance.

You obviously have no business acumen at all.
Let's put More restrictions on an industry that we just sent billions to and is struggling.

Brilliant.

[JBond]

Didn't the taxpayers just give the car companies $30 billion for them to retool as a result of the last changes in MPG requirements.

How much is this one going to cost the people who actually pay taxes?

Obama is the guy who wants $5 a gallon gas. He thinks that is a great idea. I seem to remember him saying something about bankrupting the coal industry also.

Add these ideas to massive tax increases and massive deficit spending and we may end up in a true world depresion.

As I posted elsewhere, If you want to learn how to repair an economy, just do the opposite of whatever Obama does.

[Cajuncowboy]

Didn't the taxpayers just give the car companies $30 billion for them to retool as a result of the last changes in MPG requirements.

How much is this one going to cost the people who actually pay taxes?

Obama is the guy who wants $5 a gallon gas. He thinks that is a great idea. I seem to remember him saying something about bankrupting the coal industry also.

Add these ideas to massive tax increases and massive deficit spending and we may end up in a true world depresion.

As I posted elsewhere, If you want to learn how to repair an economy, just do the opposite of whatever Obama does.

these people honestly don't get it. It's like watching children playing with country. They don't have a clue in the world what they are doing so they ust throw stuff around with no real thought. but the left has been doing that for a long time.

Or maybe there is real thought to it and they just want to destroy this country. It's one or the other.

[TheCount]

these people honestly don't get it. It's like watching children playing with country. They don't have a clue in the world what they are doing so they ust throw stuff around with no real thought. but the left has been doing that for a long time.

Or maybe there is real thought to it and they just want to destroy this country. It's one or the other.
I can't even begin to explain to you how funny it is that you believe every turd that comes out of your mouth is made of gold. You'd think you had more experience than the local high-school class president, governing a country.

[iceberg]

Yes, how dare he fulfill promises he made while running for the office he now holds, what an idiot.

If the automakers were capable of doing this stuff on their own, they wouldn't be doing quite as badly as they are now, but while foreign manufacturers were busy making small efficient cars, we were cranking out Escalades and Hummers.

Domestic manufacturers are already moving this way anyway. All this does is ensure the Chevy Volt doesn't end up being the new EV1. It helps save them from themselves.

the government is NOT here to bail out failed businesses. if they fail, they fail. companies like tesla motors can come up and fill the gap.

[iceberg]

Didn't the taxpayers just give the car companies $30 billion for them to retool as a result of the last changes in MPG requirements.

How much is this one going to cost the people who actually pay taxes?

Obama is the guy who wants $5 a gallon gas. He thinks that is a great idea. I seem to remember him saying something about bankrupting the coal industry also.

Add these ideas to massive tax increases and massive deficit spending and we may end up in a true world depresion.

As I posted elsewhere, If you want to learn how to repair an economy, just do the opposite of whatever Obama does.

link me to $5 a gallon for gas please. i think he wants to wean us off and a high price will force that, of which i disagree. but i do want to know the source here before i go too crazy.

bankrupt the coal industry - as far as i know his restrictions were for *new* plants, not the old ones. link me if otherwise.

[burmafrd]

Nothing about drilling off shore or increasing domestic or nearby production. Just more pie in the sky alternative BS that has failed to live up to any of its promises. None of the alternatives have shown any real promise despite billions spent on them. Watch the price of gas start to climb again.

[DaBoys4Life]

the government is NOT here to bail out failed businesses. if they fail, they fail. companies like tesla motors can come up and fill the gap.

I agree with that.

[TheCount]

Nothing about drilling off shore or increasing domestic or nearby production. Just more pie in the sky alternative BS that has failed to live up to any of its promises. None of the alternatives have shown any real promise despite billions spent on them. Watch the price of gas start to climb again.


The article isn't about oil or alternative fuels, so not even sure what you're talking about but I agree that most of this hydrogen fuel-cell nonsense is just that.

I wrote a thesis on this stuff, and suffice to say if anyone is waiting for hydrogen powered cars to be common place, they shouldn't hold their breath and bio-fuels just trade one noose for another, the farmers would love it though.

[burmafrd]

Hydrogen fueled cars are a total joke. Either by fuel cell or by direct hyrdrogen use. Just like the current hybrids are a joke due to their cost and the short battery life. Until there is a significant break through in battery technology the electric car is pie in the sky for any major impact.
This is the first really stupid thing Obama has done or is trying to do. If we do not find a way to get more oil from more secure or closer sources we are in trouble in the next 5-10 years. ANd we have to start NOW. Even the most optimistic types admit that the alternatives will not have any real impact for at least 10 years and probably longer. And expecting a 40% increase in fuel mileage in 5 years is another joke. The only way that the automakers can even get close to that would be to make nothing but small tin boxes.
Yugo here we come.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Wow! Talk about ignorance.

You obviously have no business acumen at all.
Let's put More restrictions on an industry that we just sent billions to and is struggling.

Brilliant.

You don't seem to get it. Is it perhaps because you just don't like Obama?

[CowboyMcCoy]

the government is NOT here to bail out failed businesses. if they fail, they fail. companies like tesla motors can come up and fill the gap.

But GM, Ford and Chrysler are all tied up with the oil industry. We spent federal money waging a war for oil. You better be damn right we're gonna bail out the gas guzzling auto makers too.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Wow! Talk about ignorance.

You obviously have no business acumen at all.
Let's put More restrictions on an industry that we just sent billions to and is struggling.

Brilliant.

We sent them tax money. There better be some friggin restrictions. They obviously don't know how to operate their business in a profitable way.

[JBond]

link me to $5 a gallon for gas please. i think he wants to wean us off and a high price will force that, of which i disagree. but i do want to know the source here before i go too crazy.

bankrupt the coal industry - as far as i know his restrictions were for *new* plants, not the old ones. link me if otherwise.

It was posted here during the election. There were UTube videos of each statement.

The main point of my post, which you did not comment on, was that the taxpayers just gave $30 billion away to the car companies to retool. How much will the taxpayers be asked to give for the retooling Obama will require?

Should taxpayers be paying for companies to comply with federal regulation? If so, Should tax payers pay for all federal regulation companies must comply with? Should the companies receive that money in the form of cash sent directly to the companies from the federal reserves?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[ThaBigP]

Yes, how dare he fulfill promises he made while running for the office he now holds, what an idiot.

If the automakers were capable of doing this stuff on their own, they wouldn't be doing quite as badly as they are now, but while foreign manufacturers were busy making small efficient cars, we were cranking out Escalades and Hummers.

Domestic manufacturers are already moving this way anyway. All this does is ensure the Chevy Volt doesn't end up being the new EV1. It helps save them from themselves.

The reason the US auto makers aren't competitive in the small car market is due to labor and benefit cost. It costs about the same amount of money in labor/benefits to make whatever car you want, expensive gas guzzlers or cheap fuel misers (barring a hand-built exotic, of course). When the US auto makers make cheap cars, the labor/benefit costs overrun the cost of the car on the open market..i.e. they lose money. When the US automakers make huge, decked out SUVs and luxury cars, on the other hand, the retail cost more than covers the cost of labor/benefits.

I'll restate this fact once more: GM employs about 50,000 employees...but pays benefits to over a million. That is completely unsustainable. Now granted, those union contracts were signed by the auto companies. Fine. Let 'em fail. They deserve to for signing into such an unsustainable agreement. But never lose sight of the fact that we are all told by the Big Government cheerleaders that we need *more* unions, and *more* cost burden to employers.

[TheCount]

Hydrogen fueled cars are a total joke. Either by fuel cell or by direct hyrdrogen use. Just like the current hybrids are a joke due to their cost and the short battery life. Until there is a significant break through in battery technology the electric car is pie in the sky for any major impact.

I agree, we need a breakthrough to get electric cars to actually make more sense. However, there will never be one, if there isn't a demand for it. You can either let demand come naturally or create it. I think they're trying both. Gas prices created as much natural demand as possible and now they are trying to manufacture the rest.

This is the first really stupid thing Obama has done or is trying to do. If we do not find a way to get more oil from more secure or closer sources we are in trouble in the next 5-10 years.

We're already in trouble, even with oil pretty much readily available.


ANd we have to start NOW. Even the most optimistic types admit that the alternatives will not have any real impact for at least 10 years and probably longer. And expecting a 40% increase in fuel mileage in 5 years is another joke. The only way that the automakers can even get close to that would be to make nothing but small tin boxes.
Yugo here we come.

The 40% increase is set for 2020, so 12 years from now. If in 12 years we can't find technology to get 35 mpg, that'd be pretty disappointing.

Now, what most people don't understand when they see that number (average 35 mpg) is that this refers to the entire car range of a manufacturer produces. It DOES NOT mean that every car sold has to average 35mpg, it means you can have a variety of cars that average different things, but your entire line should come out to 35mpg. I think you also get credits if you introduce alternative fuel models and so on, which I still say, is stupid.

The problem here is that we've created this fantasy where the fault of all this lays with the manufactures and oil companies. American's did this to themselves, and this is what Obama means when he says he wants gas prices at $5.

These mandates alone won't do it, American's have to want to buy more efficient cars.

[ninja]

I said it before the election: Americans are going to get the government they deserve. The American people voted for this idiot Democrat and gave him complete control of Congress to boot. So, Obama basically has carte blanc.

As a Republican, I am just sitting back watching these idiots and wondering what stupid thing they will do next.

[TheCount]

I said it before the election: Americans are going to get the government they deserve. The American people voted for this idiot Democrat and gave him complete control of Congress to boot. So, Obama basically has carte blanc.

As a Republican, I am just sitting back watching these idiots and wondering what stupid thing they will do next.

Welcome to America, where the side you choose doesn't always win.

[Cajuncowboy]

I can't even begin to explain to you how funny it is that you believe every turd that comes out of your mouth is made of gold. You'd think you had more experience than the local high-school class president, governing a country.

That would be more than Obama had going in.

I've got more experience running a business and managing people and meeting payroll than him as well.

And the trud/mouth thing is ironic coming from you.

[DaBoys4Life]

The reason the US auto makers aren't competitive in the small car market is due to labor and benefit cost. It costs about the same amount of money in labor/benefits to make whatever car you want, expensive gas guzzlers or cheap fuel misers (barring a hand-built exotic, of course). When the US auto makers make cheap cars, the labor/benefit costs overrun the cost of the car on the open market..i.e. they lose money. When the US automakers make huge, decked out SUVs and luxury cars, on the other hand, the retail cost more than covers the cost of labor/benefits.

I'll restate this fact once more: GM employs about 50,000 employees...but pays benefits to over a million. That is completely unsustainable. Now granted, those union contracts were signed by the auto companies. Fine. Let 'em fail. They deserve to for signing into such an unsustainable agreement. But never lose sight of the fact that we are all told by the Big Government cheerleaders that we need *more* unions, and *more* cost burden to employers.

I think that's the main problem not how many gallons of gas a car can hold. They benefits that they get are ridiculous. They need to fail and rebuild so to set a new standard not pump more money into them because in a couple of years they will still have the same money and be asking for hand outs again.

[sacase]

I agree, we need a breakthrough to get electric cars to actually make more sense. However, there will never be one, if there isn't a demand for it. You can either let demand come naturally or create it. I think they're trying both. Gas prices created as much natural demand as possible and now they are trying to manufacture the rest.



We're already in trouble, even with oil pretty much readily available.




The 40% increase is set for 2020, so 12 years from now. If in 12 years we can't find technology to get 35 mpg, that'd be pretty disappointing.

Now, what most people don't understand when they see that number (average 35 mpg) is that this refers to the entire car range of a manufacturer produces. It DOES NOT mean that every car sold has to average 35mpg, it means you can have a variety of cars that average different things, but your entire line should come out to 35mpg. I think you also get credits if you introduce alternative fuel models and so on, which I still say, is stupid.

The problem here is that we've created this fantasy where the fault of all this lays with the manufactures and oil companies. American's did this to themselves, and this is what Obama means when he says he wants gas prices at $5.

These mandates alone won't do it, American's have to want to buy more efficient cars.

Which means he wants to create and artificially high price so he can push for another for of technology. Makes you wonder who some of his backers are. If gas prices are low then we will continue to use it. We don't need him to artificially create high gas prices.

Look here is the thing. Green technology is not cheap and right now it is not cost efficient to use it. The only way you can get people to go to green technology is to have current energy prices become higher than the already expensive and less efficient green alternative.

[DaBoys4Life]

Which means he wants to create and artificially high price so he can push for another for of technology. Makes you wonder who some of his backers are. If gas prices are low then we will continue to use it. We don't need him to artificially create high gas prices.

Look here is the thing. Green technology is not cheap and right now it is not cost efficient to use it. The only way you can get people to go to green technology is to have current energy prices become higher than the already expensive and less efficient green alternative.

So what would the alternative to gas be?

[sacase]

Honestly right now, nothing. I have read that we are not even close to getting the full amount of potential energy in oil, so it would stand to reason that we keep working on figuring that out. No one would argue that we shouldn't get better milage out of cars, but they need to be realistic goals, not some fara fetched fantasy world.

[iceberg]

The 40% increase is set for 2020, so 12 years from now. If in 12 years we can't find technology to get 35 mpg, that'd be pretty disappointing.

get used to disappointment, then. how long have we had cars? this isn't our 1st gas crunch either.

prices drop to affordable levels, consumer whines about other pain, people focus elsewhere and since the focus is off gas prices, why bother? to a point, obama *has* a point but it's the wrong one in the end and won't get what he's after. but the price tag to try will be enormous.

if we've not found this elusive technology in 100 years, why do you think 12 years will be a magic bullet now when it's no longer even a pain point today for people in general?

[ajk23az]

This explains Obama.

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g273/air0208/image1.jpg

[DaBoys4Life]

This explains Obama.

http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=28670bbd27&view=att&th=11f14342859c3c08&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw


why does your link to me to google mail?

[TheCount]

This explains Obama.

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g273/air0208/image1.jpg

Photoshop is great.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/phone.asp

[iceberg]

But GM, Ford and Chrysler are all tied up with the oil industry. We spent federal money waging a war for oil. You better be damn right we're gonna bail out the gas guzzling auto makers too.

if it was a war for oil, where is it? where is our share? what did we take for our efforts?

don't go off on tirade #2, just show me the oil. that's all.

[Cajuncowboy]

get used to disappointment, then. how long have we had cars? this isn't our 1st gas crunch either.

prices drop to affordable levels, consumer whines about other pain, people focus elsewhere and since the focus is off gas prices, why bother? to a point, obama *has* a point but it's the wrong one in the end and won't get what he's after. but the price tag to try will be enormous.

if we've not found this elusive technology in 100 years, why do you think 12 years will be a magic bullet now when it's no longer even a pain point today for people in general?

See this is where all of this ties into the BIG liberal lie...Global warming.

First they make claims that the earth is gonna burn up so we have to make cars with better gas mileage and better emissions. But the truth is they dont want better mileage.

What they want is the revenue from the automakers from the sale of all these cars we need to buy to replace the SUVs. Then, as they did in Washington state, when the majority of people "go green" they end up taxing them based on mileage, not at the pump.

This whole thing is about how can we manipulate private industry, which is why I was against the bailout.

If the government would stay out private business, such as the auto industry and let the market dictate it, we would be far better off. But Obama and his ilk want their fingers in every aspect of our lives.

The BS about Carbon footprints, carbon buy offs, and all that is nothing but bunk and a way for the Al Gores of the world to make a killing. And the rest of the world gets duped into it.

[TheCount]

get used to disappointment, then. how long have we had cars? this isn't our 1st gas crunch either.

prices drop to affordable levels, consumer whines about other pain, people focus elsewhere and since the focus is off gas prices, why bother? to a point, obama *has* a point but it's the wrong one in the end and won't get what he's after. but the price tag to try will be enormous.

if we've not found this elusive technology in 100 years, why do you think 12 years will be a magic bullet now when it's no longer even a pain point today for people in general?

The technology is already out there. We had electric cars in the late 1800's, you think technology is the issue?

The only issue is people's perceptions and preconceived notions as well as the billions already invested in a failing system and a poor economy which seems like an impossible mountain to overcome to some.

A 35 MPG average over your entire product line is not unreasonable in the least.

[DaBoys4Life]

if it was a war for oil, where is it? where is our share? what did we take for our efforts?

don't go off on tirade #2, just show me the oil. that's all.

We may never see the what the spoil of the war would of been if Obama plan really pulls out of Iraq.

[DaBoys4Life]

The technology is already out there. We had electric cars in the late 1800's, you think technology is the issue?

The only issue is people's perceptions and preconceived notions as well as the billions already invested in a failing system and a poor economy which seems like an impossible mountain to overcome to some.

A 35 MPG average over your entire product line is not unreasonable in the least.

That is a problem we have the technology for stuff however, it's not going to create a profit for those in control therefore nothing changes.

[VCDefectors]

Let's put More restrictions on an industry that we just sent billions to and is struggling.

Brilliant.

I don't know if regulation is all that necessary at this point. Demand for oil is down, and as well as the demand for gas-guzzlers (SUVs and the like). But I do think auto makers should make fuel efficiency a priority because the consumer demand for fuel efficient vehicles is there, albeit at a lower level than it was 6 months ago.

[iceberg]

The technology is already out there. We had electric cars in the late 1800's, you think technology is the issue?

The only issue is people's perceptions and preconceived notions as well as the billions already invested in a failing system and a poor economy which seems like an impossible mountain to overcome to some.

A 35 MPG average over your entire product line is not unreasonable in the least.

so you've never actually run a car company, you're just guessing? please tell me how you base your experience here to sum it up so nicely.

i think in todays market if someone could build an electric car that worked as well as a gas powered one for the came or lower cost, we'd not have to bail out an industry because we let the industry do the work for us.

have you looked at tesla motors yet? see the price tag for that "technology"? having it doesn't make it practical or affordable, but it does appear on powerpoint presentations to say SEE!!! it would seem.

now please tell me how you can say 12 years is not unreasonable to get an entire car company to 35mpg. i'd love to know your firsthand experience that 3 industries in our country and more than 2 dozen across the world fail to grasp or they'd be doing it outside of our "red tape".

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't know if regulation is all that necessary at this point. Demand for oil is down, and as well as the demand for gas-guzzlers (SUVs and the like). But I do think auto makers should make fuel efficiency a priority because the consumer demand for fuel efficient vehicles is there, albeit at a lower level than it was 6 months ago.

Well that's just the point, VC. Let the market work. It has and will. AS you said, regulation isn't necessary.

What's odd is this administration has been in favor of the bailout but yet they are doing everything they can to kill the industry. They are going to do it with this and they are going to do the same thing to small business people in this country with over taxation. Once they start regulating this industry more, there will be another industry they will want to get into.

It doesn't end for them.

[JBond]

so you've never actually run a car company, you're just guessing? please tell me how you base your experience here to sum it up so nicely.

i think in todays market if someone could build an electric car that worked as well as a gas powered one for the came or lower cost, we'd not have to bail out an industry because we let the industry do the work for us.

have you looked at tesla motors yet? see the price tag for that "technology"? having it doesn't make it practical or affordable, but it does appear on powerpoint presentations to say SEE!!! it would seem.

now please tell me how you can say 12 years is not unreasonable to get an entire car company to 35mpg. i'd love to know your firsthand experience that 3 industries in our country and more than 2 dozen across the world fail to grasp or they'd be doing it outside of our "red tape".

Ice, could you look back at post 16. I respect much of what you say but was wondering about your view of taxpayers paying for the cost to comply with federal regulation. Who should pay that cost?

[iceberg]

Ice, could you look back at post 16. I respect much of what you say but was wondering about your view of taxpayers paying for the cost to comply with federal regulation. Who should pay that cost?

i don't have a good answer for that one, but i do agree it's a valid point. my "gut" says let the business take care of it, but then the cost of those decisions/regulations have no weight on the government, so pawn them all off on industry. but in the end "we the people" will pay for it either by a higher price in cars or higher taxes to pay for it.

[VCDefectors]

Well that's just the point, VC. Let the market work. It has and will. AS you said, regulation isn't necessary.

What's odd is this administration has been in favor of the bailout but yet they are doing everything they can to kill the industry. They are going to do it with this and they are going to do the same thing to small business people in this country with over taxation. Once they start regulating this industry more, there will be another industry they will want to get into.

It doesn't end for them.

Actually, in some small way, the timing of these regulations does make sense. The government is bailing out the auto industry while consumer demand is down. If there is a time to push the auto industry for more efficient cars, now's the time to do it. It would be more difficult to accomplish fuel-efficiency goals if people were to start buying gas-guzzlers en masse again.

[Rogah]

If the automakers were capable of doing this stuff on their own, they wouldn't be doing quite as badly as they are now, but while foreign manufacturers were busy making small efficient cars, we were cranking out Escalades and Hummers.This is a fallacy. Both domestic and foreign auto makers were selling plenty of large cars in the United States - and making plenty of money while doing so. Don't blame the manufacturers when they are simply responding to the demands of the marketplace. The only ones to blame for our glut of huge cars are we, the people.

[TheCount]

so you've never actually run a car company, you're just guessing? please tell me how you base your experience here to sum it up so nicely.

Once again, I don't really know what you're talking about, I didn't claim to run a "car company". However, like I said, I wrote my thesis on this stuff after spending two years doing research and interviewing anyone that would sit still long enough. There are a lot of things I don't know, but this isn't one of them.

i think in todays market if someone could build an electric car that worked as well as a gas powered one for the came or lower cost, we'd not have to bail out an industry because we let the industry do the work for us.

An electric car wouldn't save the auto industry from the problems they currently have. There have been electric vehicles sold in the U.S. before, read about the EV1. And for the record, I don't support the auto industry bail out.

have you looked at tesla motors yet? see the price tag for that "technology"? having it doesn't make it practical or affordable, but it does appear on powerpoint presentations to say SEE!!! it would seem.

I never said Electric cars are the answer. The Tesla Roadster is a toy for the rich and smug, it's not meant to be practical. You should be looking at drive trains like the Chevy Volt if you want modern, practical tech. It is, in essence, an electric vehicle although it has an engine onboard, which is not connected to the drive train.

now please tell me how you can say 12 years is not unreasonable to get an entire car company to 35mpg. i'd love to know your firsthand experience that 3 industries in our country and more than 2 dozen across the world fail to grasp or they'd be doing it outside of our "red tape".

Once again, it's not getting an "entire car company to 35 mpg) it's getting the "average of an entire car companies line to 35 mpg". You can have a diesel that does 70 mpg (and they do exist) and a sports car that does 1 mpg and boom, 35.5 mpg average. Considering there are no production cars that do 1 mpg, and not a lot of cars that do 70 mpg, I'd say the goal is certainly viable but it has to be a conscious decision to get that number.

They've never been required to get their average to 35mpg before, so I don't know why you think it's been a target beforehand.

You might be surprised at just how close some car companies already are to that target actually.

You can start your education here:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/fleet-economy.html

[Rogah]

I'll restate this fact once more: GM employs about 50,000 employees...but pays benefits to over a million. That is completely unsustainable. Now granted, those union contracts were signed by the auto companies. Fine. Let 'em fail. They deserve to for signing into such an unsustainable agreement. But never lose sight of the fact that we are all told by the Big Government cheerleaders that we need *more* unions, and *more* cost burden to employers. :bow:

[TheCount]

This is a fallacy. Both domestic and foreign auto makers were selling plenty of large cars in the United States - and making plenty of money while doing so. Don't blame the manufacturers when they are simply responding to the demands of the marketplace. The only ones to blame for our glut of huge cars are we, the people.

I acknowledged that, as is usually the case, there is plenty of blame to go around, including ourselves.

In my opinion, nothing talks louder than money however. So whenever we've had fuel issues (such as in the 70's, 80's, etc.) all of sudden you start seeing these more efficient cars pop out.

So what happens? Demand goes down, prices come down... people say hey, gas is cheap again! Screw this four cylinder, I can't get laid in this! I'm gonna get a v8! Demand goes back up, prices go back up... hey wait a minute... gas is expensive! Screw this, I'm gonna buy a four cylinder.

However, when these companies are raking it in, they aren't bothering to invest a lot in either the big cars or the little cars, because we're fickle and we always come back for either one or the other.

[Rogah]

I acknowledged that, as is usually the case, there is plenty of blame to go around, including ourselves.

In my opinion, nothing talks louder than money however. So whenever we've had fuel issues (such as in the 70's, 80's, etc.) all of sudden you start seeing these more efficient cars pop out.

So what happens? Demand goes down, prices come down... people say hey, gas is cheap again! Screw this four cylinder, I can't get laid in this! I'm gonna get a v8! Demand goes back up, prices go back up... hey wait a minute... gas is expensive! Screw this, I'm gonna buy a four cylinder.

However, when these companies are raking it in, they aren't bothering to invest a lot in either the big cars or the little cars, because we're fickle and we always come back for either one or the other.You're absolutely right. We don't even have to go back to the 70's and 80's to see this, just look over the past 18 months. When gas was $4 a gallon this past summer, there was a noticeable decrease in demand for big cars. Now gas has come back down and consumers have resumed their short sighted ways.

[iceberg]

Once again, I don't really know what you're talking about, I didn't claim to run a "car company". However, like I said, I wrote my thesis on this stuff after spending two years doing research and interviewing anyone that would sit still long enough. There are a lot of things I don't know, but this isn't one of them.

An electric car wouldn't save the auto industry from the problems they currently have. There have been electric vehicles sold in the U.S. before, read about the EV1. And for the record, I don't support the auto industry bail out.

i'm well aware of the EV1 and why it died. however more often than not trying to talk about it *now* only goes off into the land of "BIG OIL KILLED IT" and that's bullshyte on a rainy day. there's a reason they don't sell "en masse" and it's not because the oil companies are keeping them down.

I never said Electric cars are the answer. The Tesla Roadster is a toy for the rich and smug, it's not meant to be practical. You should be looking at drive trains like the Chevy Volt if you want modern, practical tech. It is, in essence, an electric vehicle although it has an engine onboard, which is not connected to the drive train.

so do i look at the EV1 or not? are they the answer, part of the answer, none of the answer or what? you bring it up then say it's not the answer. WHAT IS?

tesla is how you get the ball rolling. if GM fell and went under, other companies *such as this* would fill the gap and grow accordingly with the times. you point to the EV1 w/o pointing to it, i guess i'm doing the same with tesla motors - example w/o the answer. maybe we're actually both pointing at the same thing from different directions?

Once again, it's not getting an "entire car company to 35 mpg) it's getting the "average of an entire car companies line to 35 mpg". You can have a diesel that does 70 mpg (and they do exist) and a sports car that does 1 mpg and boom, 35.5 mpg average. Considering there are no production cars that do 1 mpg, I'd say the goal is certainly visible.

i'm well aware of CAFE being an average of standards. but isn't it also based off sales and not just models offered? if so you're "hoping" people will rush to the higher MPG cars and get out of the comfortable ones. will they? changing the manufacturers *alone* isn't the issue. the buying public has to have a mindset change. if i can afford a 25mpg car but am much more comfortable in it, i'll buy it and not care about CAFE because it's not my burden.

[iceberg]

You're absolutely right. We don't even have to go back to the 70's and 80's to see this, just look over the past 18 months. When gas was $4 a gallon this past summer, there was a noticeable decrease in demand for big cars. Now gas has come back down and consumers have resumed their short sighted ways.

and as long as the average consumers pocketbook isn't affected, the CAFE is meaningless to them. they'll buy what they can afford at the time and move on. making a 70mpg car is nice but if $30k and up or more, who will buy it? then if it's a ford festiva or something that i'd need 2 to fit in, i'll take the bigger car and less mpg as my own tradeoff, knowing gas will just take more of my budget.

maybe the government telling the car makers what to make is part of the problem.

[arglebargle]

.....

I'll restate this fact once more: GM employs about 50,000 employees...but pays benefits to over a million. That is completely unsustainable. Now granted, those union contracts were signed by the auto companies. Fine. Let 'em fail. They deserve to for signing into such an unsustainable agreement. But never lose sight of the fact that we are all told by the Big Government cheerleaders that we need *more* unions, and *more* cost burden to employers.


So you are in favor of pulling the income from over a million people, including 50,000 directly, and who knows how many in the interconnected businesses, all this in the middle of a severe recession/depression? You don't think that might be a tad dangerous?

[iceberg]

So you are in favor of pulling the income from over a million people, including 50,000 directly, and who knows how many in the interconnected businesses, all this in the middle of a severe recession/depression? You don't think that might be a tad dangerous?

and you don't think it's dangerous to stay on the path that got us here because it hurts to get off?

[TheCount]

i'm well aware of the EV1 and why it died. however more often than not trying to talk about it *now* only goes off into the land of "BIG OIL KILLED IT" and that's bullshyte on a rainy day. there's a reason they don't sell "en masse" and it's not because the oil companies are keeping them down.

Agreed.

so do i look at the EV1 or not? are they the answer, part of the answer, none of the answer or what? you bring it up then say it's not the answer. WHAT IS?

You can look at the EV1 if you want or not. Like I said, I never said they are the answer and I never suggested the EV1 was either. We were simply discussing whether the technology exists or not and it's capabilities.


tesla is how you get the ball rolling. if GM fell and went under, other companies *such as this* would fill the gap and grow accordingly with the times. you point to the EV1 w/o pointing to it, i guess i'm doing the same with tesla motors - example w/o the answer. maybe we're actually both pointing at the same thing from different directions?

I disagree. Tesla is part of the ball, it didn't get the ball rolling and it won't. Most people see the Tesla and think, wow cool car... then see the price tag and place it in the same box as a Ferrari. Something exotic they'd love to own, but will probably never get a chance to.

i'm well aware of CAFE being an average of standards. but isn't it also based off sales and not just models offered? if so you're "hoping" people will rush to the higher MPG cars and get out of the comfortable ones. will they? changing the manufacturers *alone* isn't the issue. the buying public has to have a mindset change. if i can afford a 25mpg car but am much more comfortable in it, i'll buy it and not care about CAFE because it's not my burden.

Yup, it's sales based as far as I remember but I do remember that we are among the worst in terms of what we deem be acceptable. I'm not sure what you mean by rushing to MPG instead of comfort, why would a more efficient car be less comfortable?

Also I already went over what else has to change, and why when gas prices are high is the best time to do this (such as now, or actually a few months ago) because we (the consumers) are more likely to buy in when they drive by gas stations on a daily basis and see the price going up.

[Rogah]

and as long as the average consumers pocketbook isn't affected, the CAFE is meaningless to them. they'll buy what they can afford at the time and move on. making a 70mpg car is nice but if $30k and up or more, who will buy it? then if it's a ford festiva or something that i'd need 2 to fit in, i'll take the bigger car and less mpg as my own tradeoff, knowing gas will just take more of my budget.

maybe the government telling the car makers what to make is part of the problem.I agree with this. One of the things I do when deciding how I feel on such an issue is I try to personalize it. In other words, I ask myself "Do I want my neighbor telling me what kind of car I have to drive? And do I want to tell him the same?" The answer in both cases is "no" - and then I substitute "the government" for "my neighbor."

[BrAinPaiNt]

i'm well aware of the EV1 and why it died. however more often than not trying to talk about it *now* only goes off into the land of "BIG OIL KILLED IT" and that's bs on a rainy day. there's a reason they don't sell "en masse" and it's not because the oil companies are keeping them down.




In the EV1's case they did not shut it down because they could not sell it en masse. Matter of fact they only leased it to a few people and never even put it up for sale to the masses. And those that did get the lease BEGGED, Offered to pay for it straight out after the recall but were not allowed to so instead the company took the cars, shipped them to the middle of nowhere and put everyone one of them and crushed them. Well all but one, one was given to an auto museum, but they took out the engine first.

So the idea that it would not sell to the masses argument might work for other ventures into electric cars, but that was not the case in the EV1.

[arglebargle]

and you don't think it's dangerous to stay on the path that got us here because it hurts to get off?

What's the bad path here? I think it is allowing increasingly monopolistic corporatists to write the laws that enshrine their competitive advantage, instead of a level playing field.

When Toyota thinks that the fall of the Detroit auto companies will severely hurt its business, this may be more than mere Detroit whining.

Not a huge fan of Detroit, but the dangers of their collapse often seem to be glossed over. Every auto maker is taking a hit now. Tesla Moters was laying off people. Toyota idling plants. Etc. Not something specific to just Detroit.

[iceberg]

Yup, it's sales based as far as I remember but I do remember that we are among the worst in terms of what we deem be acceptable. I'm not sure what you mean by rushing to MPG instead of comfort, why would a more efficient car be less comfortable?

Also I already went over what else has to change, and why when gas prices are high is the best time to do this (such as now, or actually a few months ago) because we (the consumers) are more likely to buy in when they drive by gas stations on a daily basis and see the price going up.

then it looks like we agree more than we disagree.

mpg vs. comfort.

i'm a big dude. 6'4", 360. i'm simply not going to "fit" in a 35mpg car anytime soon. maybe as a passenger but never with a steering wheel in front of me. so, i'll drive my 4x4 dodge that get 12mpg by choice, knowing i'll pay more in gas.

now i have a magnum hemi that gets 20 on the highway but has plenty of room for me. (and power, i must admit i love the power!) gas can go up all it wants and i can cry all i want but i'm not going to fit into the cars usually made to get the higher mpg. it's already bad enough trying to fit on a "one size fits all" airplane seat.

then others prefer the safety of a larger car and may fit in one just fine. a former manager of mine was like 5' and 90lbs but always drove 4x4's and hummers. when asked why, she said safety.

will a 35mpg car be as safe as a 4x4? doubt it. so these are choices we make as a consumer.

now what are we going to drive? this will on average fall back to how much it costs to drive it. making up numbers for makers to meet seems backwards to me. they'll make what sells. forcing them to make a small car that gets the mpg THEN SELL it so it has an effect on CAFE is a whole nother matter.

what if we don't WANT the smaller cars that do that? we buy something else and pay for it again in penalties because the maker didn't meet CAFE standards.

so i'll agree we need to focus on alternative energy, but i don't see raising the # to meet as a valid way to do that. why not drop that standard and find ways to encourage developing other ways, not using less of the current way?

tesla motors - can't argue that. a $100k car is pretty out there. but what if they could be more mass produced in a less exotic form? say around $30-35k. would more sell then? i do think *things like this* are a way to start but not the destination.

[iceberg]

In the EV1's case they did not shut it down because they could not sell it en masse. Matter of fact they only leased it to a few people and never even put it up for sale to the masses. And those that did get the lease BEGGED, Offered to pay for it straight out after the recall but were not allowed to so instead the company took the cars, shipped them to the middle of nowhere and put everyone one of them and crushed them. Well all but one, one was given to an auto museum, but they took out the engine first.

So the idea that it would not sell to the masses argument might work for other ventures into electric cars, but that was not the case in the EV1.

maybe. but in the end GM said they couldn't make it profitable. that's the driving fator for it all, isn't it? now if GM was lying or wrong is another topic.

[Cajuncowboy]

maybe. but in the end GM said they couldn't make it profitable. that's the driving fator for it all, isn't it? now if GM was lying or wrong is another topic.

And if it's not profitable, what's the point in making it?

Isn't that what everyone is screaming about, that they can't manage themselves without regulation?

Left to their own, they will either close up or thrive. I say let it happen one way or the other and keep the government the heck out of it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

then it looks like we agree more than we disagree.

mpg vs. comfort.

i'm a big dude. 6'4", 360. i'm simply not going to "fit" in a 35mpg car anytime soon. maybe as a passenger but never with a steering wheel in front of me. so, i'll drive my 4x4 dodge that get 12mpg by choice, knowing i'll pay more in gas.



Most of the time it is not really the size of the individual. I mean I have been in a fiero and some other smaller cars and still had plenty of room.

The bigger part of it to me is a family car. And individual may fit into a small car but a family with a few kids will have trouble.

Now in your case...I am pretty sure you can find a vehicle that gets better than 12 MPG that fits your big arse.:D But as you said...it is choice but I don't know if I can buy that you can't find a car with better gas mileage because you are big.

Another thing of note as well. In looking for cars it is hard, at least to me, to find a vehicle that fits all of your wants.

For instance...you might want decent mileage per gallon, decent power, good safety ratings, looks good on the inside and the outside.

Normally when looking at some of the great gas per mileage cars you see vehicles that are just ugly and don't have enough power for someone that might live in an area that has hills/mountains.

And then of course the biggest thing for most people is the cost right now. Some can not afford a brand new car at all and it is hard to find some of the better mileage per gallon cars on the used market.

So many of us are just stuck with what we have now.

[iceberg]

Most of the time it is not really the size of the individual. I mean I have been in a fiero and some other smaller cars and still had plenty of room.

The bigger part of it to me is a family car. And individual may fit into a small car but a family with a few kids will have trouble.

Now in your case...I am pretty sure you can find a vehicle that gets better than 12 MPG that fits your big arse.:D But as you said...it is choice but I don't know if I can buy that you can't find a car with better gas mileage because you are big.

Another thing of note as well. In looking for cars it is hard, at least to me, to find a vehicle that fits all of your wants.

For instance...you might want decent mileage per gallon, decent power, good safety ratings, looks good on the inside and the outside.

Normally when looking at some of the great gas per mileage cars you see vehicles that are just ugly and don't have enough power for someone that might live in an area that has hills/mountains.

And then of course the biggest thing for most people is the cost right now. Some can not afford a brand new car at all and it is hard to find some of the better mileage per gallon cars on the used market.

So many of us are just stuck with what we have now.

certainly size is just one consideration. you mention a lot of other good ones we'll all consider for our own needs and pay accordingly. in the end focused solely on MPG i just think is a waste of time but that's how CAFE has to get measured. how many 40mpg cars did you sell, and on down the line to figure out your CAFE. it's not build 1 at 70mpg and 1 at 10mpg and wala, you're at 40 with 2 cars.

[BrAinPaiNt]

maybe. but in the end GM said they couldn't make it profitable. that's the driving fator for it all, isn't it? now if GM was lying or wrong is another topic.

How do they know, they had willing buyers, the ones leasing it, but never attempted to even sell the thing. Nor did they even put much of an effort in advertisement for it.

You make the car on a limited basis, give it to some people on lease, have a terrible advertisement campaign than take it back and not let those that wanted to buy it...buy it but instead destroy it.

I think the bigger issue was that California changed it standards at the time and once that vote happened, the cars were recalled...it was kind of funny.

But hard to make the argument they could not sell it or it was not profitable...when they never really tried to sell it or put money into selling it or even sell it to those that WERE willing to buy it.

[iceberg]

How do they know, they had willing buyers, the ones leasing it, but never attempted to even sell the thing. Nor did they even put much of an effort in advertisement for it.

You make the car on a limited basis, give it to some people on lease, have a terrible advertisement campaign than take it back and not let those that wanted to buy it...buy it but instead destroy it.

I think the bigger issue was that California changed it standards at the time and once that vote happened, the cars were recalled...it was kind of funny.

But hard to make the argument they could not sell it or it was not profitable...when they never really tried to sell it or put money into selling it or even sell it to those that WERE willing to buy it.

no idea. that's why i say all i know from what i've read is GM didn't think they could make it profitable. looking back maybe they were wrong and just scared to invest in it. but i don't think it was killed and put away for dubious reasons. stupidity maybe, but not otherwise.

[BrAinPaiNt]

no idea. that's why i say all i know from what i've read is GM didn't think they could make it profitable. looking back maybe they were wrong and just scared to invest in it. but i don't think it was killed and put away for dubious reasons. stupidity maybe, but not otherwise.

Could be both Stupidity and Dubious reasons.

[iceberg]

Could be both Stupidity and Dubious reasons.

heh, good quote.

that's some dubious stupidity you got there, son...

[TheCount]

then it looks like we agree more than we disagree.

mpg vs. comfort.

i'm a big dude. 6'4", 360. i'm simply not going to "fit" in a 35mpg car anytime soon. maybe as a passenger but never with a steering wheel in front of me. so, i'll drive my 4x4 dodge that get 12mpg by choice, knowing i'll pay more in gas.

I'm 6'6", 215, trust me, I fully understand what you mean.

I sat in a prius while doing my research and the idiots had put the gear level on the dash and it jabbed me in the knee cap every time I stepped on the gas. Thankfully they relocated it for the new version, not that the car looks any better.

certainly size is just one consideration. you mention a lot of other good ones we'll all consider for our own needs and pay accordingly. in the end focused solely on MPG i just think is a waste of time but that's how CAFE has to get measured. how many 40mpg cars did you sell, and on down the line to figure out your CAFE. it's not build 1 at 70mpg and 1 at 10mpg and wala, you're at 40 with 2 cars.

I would hope that you understand my 70mpg/1mpg statement was not meant to be taken literally but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether 35 mpg is a reasonable number.

Honda, which I believe also includes the Acura line, is close to that number already and they don't have a hybrid that sells nearly as well as the Prius but they still sell 300hp turbocharged cars right along with their boring Civics.

Toyota is close as well, partly thanks to the Prius, and they still manage to sell the 15mpg Thundra pick-up truck.

I just personally don't think a 35mpg mandate is going to change the landscape of the vehicles we see available. We'll still be able to find vehicles that fit us.

[CowboyWay]

We sent them tax money. There better be some friggin restrictions. They obviously don't know how to operate their business in a profitable way.


Absolutely.

Cajun makes me laugh.

[burmafrd]

We have sent tax money to most corporations for years so this is only different in that instead of tax breaks its right there.
As regards the EV1 to make it a profitable line it would have to sell at least 100,000 a year. MINIMUM. GM did not think at that time of relatively cheap gas that it would be able to sell that many.

[jrumann59]

While I tend to agree that the Big 3 do not know how to run their business it would be negligent of the government to let them fold. Whether anyone wants to believe this or not but the big 3 are still part of the Politcal War Machine, if we were to get into a war that would require materiel guess who the gov't is gonna tap to help make truckloads of hummers and tanks, the Big 3. The other issue with the Big 3 is they hedged their profits into their financing arms, so they sold their cars at a loss or even and hoped to make it it back on a 4-5 year finance term. Well the banks tanked and the only people that can buy cars from them need a lot down or a very very good credit score, if you have a cery good credit score you are not likely to go to some automakers bank for a loan so they ended up in a pretty vicious loop which will take a long time to get out of. Now why are they selling cars at such low margins, the unions, the Big 3 are competing against most of the foreign makers but Honda and Toyota being the biggest, both of which have plants in the USA now and they are not union so they can make their cars for relatively less and still have the reputation for reliability even theough it cost more to repair them. So while the majority of their problems is their own fault some of it can be traced back to labor issues.

[JBond]

So you are in favor of pulling the income from over a million people, including 50,000 directly, and who knows how many in the interconnected businesses, all this in the middle of a severe recession/depression? You don't think that might be a tad dangerous?

Let the companies that promised to pay them, pay them. If they can't, I imagine a better company will take their place. Just please stop begging like dogs for the money I have earned and need to support my family.

[Cajuncowboy]

Absolutely.

Cajun makes me laugh.

Yeah. Haha. Funny. Let's kill the industry we just bailed out.

Real funny.

The real joke is in the White House.

You people are the jokes for voting him in.

[JBond]

Yeah. Haha. Funny. Let's kill the industry we just bailed out.

Real funny.

The real joke is in the White House.

You people are the jokes for voting him in.

You are fired up tonight. I don't blame you. Sometimes you just get fed up with the crap. Go get them.

[Cajuncowboy]

You are fired up tonight. I don't blame you. Sometimes you just get fed up with the crap. Go get them.

Yeah, I am fed up. I am watching the systematic dismantling of my nation by the left. kinda ticks me off.

[silverbear]

The latest rule on California aims to reverse a 2007 decision by the Bush Environmental Protection Agency that touched off a storm of investigations and lawsuits from Democrats and environmental groups who contended the denial was based on political instead of scientific reasons.

California's proposed restrictions would force automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016. U.S. automakers have opposed the waiver, claiming it would create two different emission standards and therefore complicate methods of manufacturing vehicles with different environmental standards.

Why can't the automakers produce ALL of their cars so that they'd be compliant with California's emission standards??

The government is offering to make things easier for them, not require them to produce such clean-running cars for all of the American public, and they scream like raped eagles... clearly, Detroit doesn't WANT to produce cleaner-running cars, and will only do so if forced to do so...

If they want "bailed out", then it's about time they started responding to the needs of the nation... if they won't do that, they don't deserve to be bailed out...

Beggars can't be choosers...

[ninja]

The government is offering to make things easier for them,...

Beggars can't be choosers...

One of the biggest lies: Hi, I'm from the government and here to help :lmao: When has the government made things easier for anyone?

Give a beggar enough money and he will be a chooser.

[JBond]

Detroit doesn't WANT to produce cleaner-running cars, and will only do so if forced to do so...

Are you an executive in the auto industry? I don't remember you mentioning that in our past discussions.

Why would Detroit not want to make clean running cars? Do they hate the planet and hope we all die? Or is it not economically viable? I wonder which one it is?

[CowboyMcCoy]

See this is where all of this ties into the BIG liberal lie...Global warming.

First they make claims that the earth is gonna burn up so we have to make cars with better gas mileage and better emissions. But the truth is they dont want better mileage.

What they want is the revenue from the automakers from the sale of all these cars we need to buy to replace the SUVs. Then, as they did in Washington state, when the majority of people "go green" they end up taxing them based on mileage, not at the pump.

This whole thing is about how can we manipulate private industry, which is why I was against the bailout.

If the government would stay out private business, such as the auto industry and let the market dictate it, we would be far better off. But Obama and his ilk want their fingers in every aspect of our lives.

The BS about Carbon footprints, carbon buy offs, and all that is nothing but bunk and a way for the Al Gores of the world to make a killing. And the rest of the world gets duped into it.

Did you go to college? Because it doesn't seem like you get the whole issue. Bush pushed for the bailout, too--not just Obama. Both are equally liable for that.

[JBond]

Did you go to college? Because it doesn't seem like you get the whole issue. Bush pushed for the bailout, too--not just Obama. Both are equally liable for that.

Every time I hear that argument, I just shake my head. Bush admitted to abandoning any Conservative principles he had left when he supported the bailout. This was an agenda that was pushed by liberals. Now that it failed people want to blame it on Bush.

The money was supposed to be used to purchase the bad loans government forced banks to make. With the bad debt off the books the banks were supposed to start loaning money again. Of course they did not do any of that.

Instead the government just gave away the money with no accounting of where it went.

I'm very proud of my Senator (Roberts KS). He coauthored legislation to stop the other half of the TARP funds from being released. Of course the liberals voted his idea down and they gave away the rest of our money, with no idea what is was going to be spent on.

Oh well.

[iceberg]

Did you go to college? Because it doesn't seem like you get the whole issue. Bush pushed for the bailout, too--not just Obama. Both are equally liable for that.

your mom goes to college....

bush also pushed for regulation of subprime lending. damn him.

he shoulda gone to college.

[JBond]

your mom goes to college....

bush also pushed for regulation of subprime lending. damn him.

he shoulda gone to college.

Bush and McCain called for reform. Reform and more regulation are not necessarily the same thing.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Bush Administration gets nailed with a great deal on the Housing bust and that's fine. I'm not going to argue the point because nobody is all that interested in dealing with it.

However, many have said that legislation was pushed to bring this thing under control and it was summarily blocked by those closely linked to this issue. The people blocking tighter controls were not Bush's Administration. I think that's pretty much a given.

Bush is gone and now it's up to those in power to correct this thing. If Obama is also blocked, will we then say that it was his fault? I'm certain that if the thing is resolved, everybody will say President Obama fixed it. This is about fixing the problems. This is no longer about hanging Bush out to dry.

[DaBoys4Life]

There's so much self interest involved in something like this. The solution cars with higher MPG. Who does that bold problems for cars that don't have that MPG, Gas stations and people that sell us the oil. If we all of a sudden became independent from the need of oil then other parts of our economy will suffer. So we have to understand that the people that benefit greatly from cars that don't have high MPG are the same people who are benefiting from the gas stations and the oil.

I know If I was in their shoes I wouldn't be willing to give up on what I made. If cars that go on 70 MPG became the norm what would happen to gas prices? The oil that's imported? No one that's making money from this indsutry is going to sit back and let that happen.

Can some one explain to my why cars with higher MPG get smaller? Could you imagine if a Caddy ran on 60 MPG?

[arglebargle]

....

Can some one explain to my why cars with higher MPG get smaller? Could you imagine if a Caddy ran on 60 MPG?


The more mass you have to get moving, the more energy it takes to get it up to speed.

You can get a tank to go 60 miles per hour, but you are often talking gallons per mile, at that point.

[Jordan55]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon012709.gif

[iceberg]

Bush and McCain called for reform. Reform and more regulation are not necessarily the same thing.

maybe i should have gone to college.

[iceberg]

The Bush Administration gets nailed with a great deal on the Housing bust and that's fine. I'm not going to argue the point because nobody is all that interested in dealing with it.

However, many have said that legislation was pushed to bring this thing under control and it was summarily blocked by those closely linked to this issue. The people blocking tighter controls were not Bush's Administration. I think that's pretty much a given.

Bush is gone and now it's up to those in power to correct this thing. If Obama is also blocked, will we then say that it was his fault? I'm certain that if the thing is resolved, everybody will say President Obama fixed it. This is about fixing the problems. This is no longer about hanging Bush out to dry.

good points and exactly where the focus needs to be.