Automotive News, Media & Press - everyone needs to see this...

How Obama Is Revamping America's Cars
Rick Newman
On Tuesday May 19, 2009, 5:02 pm EDT
Buzz up! Print The usual practice in Washington is to issue marginal new rules and declare them revolutionary. President Obama's new fuel-economy standards for automobiles, by contrast, may be even more sweeping than Obama himself acknowledges.

The president's goal is to improve America's collective gas mileage, cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and reduce U.S. imports of foreign oil. To do that, Obama aims to limit the amount of tailpipe emissions cars can spew, the first such federal regulation. And he'll raise gas-mileage standards by 40 percent, basically accelerating new rules put in place during the Bush administration. Those rules were considered aggressive when passed in 2007, but now Obama will bring them into effect four years sooner. It's an "epoch-changer," says Jack Nerad of car-research site kbb.com. "It will markedly change what Americans drive." Here's how:

Cars will cost more. Raising fuel economy so quickly will force automakers to fast-track new technology that might otherwise evolve over years or decades. That will be expensive. The new rules start to get phased in for the 2011 model year, which will include many cars appearing in showrooms in 2010. By the time the rules are fully implemented for the 2016 model year, the auto industry estimates that meeting the new requirements could add $1,300 to the cost of a car. The industry has overstated such estimates in the past, yet even environmentalists who have pushed for the changes expect car prices to increase $1,100 or so by 2015.

[See 5 reasons to buy an American car.]

The price increase will probably be less for cheap cars and more for luxury models. On a typically priced $25,000 car, the hike could amount to an extra $25 per month or so over the course of a 5-year loan.

Mileage will be better--on virtually all cars. The new rules will directly mandate higher fuel economy. For passenger cars introduced as 2016 models, fleetwide mileage must be 39 miles per gallon or better. SUVs and pickup-truck fleets must average 30 mpg. Combined, that's an average of 35 mpg for all cars in an automakers' lineup.

In the past, required mileage increases have been structured in a way that allowed automakers to offset low mileage vehicles like SUVs by building lots of higher-mileage economy cars, even if they were unpopular and the manufacturers took a loss on them. That's one reason the Detroit automakers became overreliant on big vehicles. But the new rules will be different, and will basically require every vehicle category to become more efficient. The details aren't yet final, but an SUV that currently averages 16 mpg may have to average 19 or 20 mpg by 2015. A minivan averaging 19 mpg now may have to get 23 or 24 mpg. A small runabout getting 30 mpg may be required to average 36 or 37 mpg by 2015.

[See 5 reasons to shun American cars.]

Fillups will cost less. Drivers will save money at the pump. If gas costs $2.50 per gallon, for instance, the typical driver of a Honda Accord with a four-cylinder engine would spend about $1,250 to drive 12,000 miles in a year. If the Accord got 40 percent better mileage, the same driver would spend about $890 on gas each year, an annual savings of $360. "They day you drive off the lot you're going to start saving money on gas," says David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which favors the new rules. "Prices will be higher, but savings will be higher too."

The only caveat is that gas prices could be a lot higher than $2.50 or even $3.50 per gallon by 2015. Some analysts and industry officials think $5 or $6 gas is plausible within a decade. If that happens, obviously consumers won't be saving money on gas, they'll be paying more. But they'll probably be thankful to have more efficient cars in the driveway.

[See who stands to lose the most from a GM bankruptcy.]

Some states will face much tougher rules. To get the automakers to sign up for the new rules, the Obama administration cut a deal with California, which for years has enforced emissions rules that effectively require cars sold in California to get better mileage than those sold elsewhere. The Golden State (and 13 other states that have adopted its standards) will now abide by the national rules. That's a huge break for the automakers, since they'll be able to build cars that meet a single set of standards, instead of tailoring vehicles to a patchwork of different rules.

In the 14 states that abide by the California standards, forthcoming changes will seem relatively gradual as the new rules start to go into effect in 2010. But in the 36 other states, dealers may start selling cars built to meet rules that are suddenly a lot tougher--which means price hikes could be more severe. Buyers in those states may need to strategize about how to get the best deal, once it's clearer how the manufacturers plan to deal with the discrepancy. (The "California states" already abiding by tough emissions rules include Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, plus the District of Columbia. The other states are the ones that may see unusually large price hikes.)

[See 12 cars that could derail Chrysler's revival.]

There will be a lot of new technology under the hood. Just when you thought you understood how fuel injectors work, you'll have to start understanding direct injection, dual clutches, continuously variable transmissions, and other technologies that automakers will use to squeeze an extra mile or two or three from a gallon of gas. Many of these systems would have arrived over time, but now they're likely to be rushed into development--one big reason car prices are likely to rise. Most car buyers won't need to understand exactly how the new technology works, but they will have to educate themselves about what's worth paying for, especially in the early stages of the rollout, when newer systems are still likely to be optional.

Many people will drive very different cars. Manufacturers will have to come up with lots of newfangled vehicles to meet the new standards, which means more hybrids in every category and price range, more "clean diesels" like those being introduced by European automakers such as Volkswagen and Mercedes, faster development of mass-market electric-powered cars like the forthcoming Chevy Volt, and probably some innovations that haven't entered the mainstream imagination yet.

[See 7 American cars worth bailing out.]

Hybrids, for instance, won't just be a marginal part of an automaker's lineup, reserved for environmentalists. There will be hybrid minivans, crossovers and SUVs, and automakers will have to sell enough of them to get volumes up and costs down. Friedman estimates that hybrids could constitute 20 percent of the entire U.S. fleet by 2020, a much higher proportion than we'd see without the new rules.

And some vehicles will stay more or less the same. The Obama administration insists that its new rules won't drive pickups and SUVs onto the endangered species list, and that car buyers will have all the choices in 10 years that they have now. That may turn out to be true, but it's also a lot less likely that an 8-passenger SUV a decade from now will be powered by a huge V-8 engine. Instead, it might be powered by a turbocharged V-6 that still has plenty of power but maybe offers less towing capability. A typical family sedan will probably be powered by a high-output four-cylinder engine instead of a V-6, and so on down the line.
Man, i wish this guy would just off himself already...ending the american muscle car is another one to tally for obama.

I am kind of on the fence with this one...I think it's good he is grabbing the US auto industry by the balls and forcing them to do what should have been implemented into R & D years ago, but totally disagree with the gov't forcing any industry into some type of requirement....imo this should be forced on the consumer...kind of like the gas guzzler tax but a much lesser extent....companies should be allowed to make whatever kind of car they want...if a tax is implemented on cars below say 30 mpg, demand for cars getting greater than that will increase...forcing auto makers to make these kinds of cars anyway. That's the way capitalism works.

He is being un-realistic...
But the government owns the auto industry, so they can force them to do whatever they want. Follow the rules or FAIL...

imo this should be forced on the consumer...kind of like the gas guzzler tax but a much lesser extent....companies should be allowed to make whatever kind of car they want...if a tax is implemented on cars below say 30 mpg, demand for cars getting greater than that will increase...forcing auto makers to make these kinds of cars anyway. That's the way capitalism works.

amen to that. i wouldn't mind extra to own a corvette/camaro/v8 performance car.

obamas a hypocrite; for the years before he got into office, he was rocking a Chrysler 300 with a 5.7hemi

^^ man i feel sorry for him

People in general are too content to rest on their laurels, and have to be forced to change or it will never happen. Every great change in this country's (relatively short) history has been forced on the majority of people by the minority. And as soon as the majority is forced to do things a different way, it becomes the new "standard" and people wonder how/why it was ever any different.

This really isnt going to solve anything. Were going to pay more for new cars. Were going to pay more for gas so the oil companies will bring in the same amount of money. Its going to make driving our older, less efficient cars more expensive. Lastly, older cars are going to have a hard time passing a emmisions test. Thanks Obama for helping us out. Wonder what he's going to do about the massive amounts of co2 that comes out thru volcanos. What about all of the factories that move overseas where there are no emmision guidelines. What a joke.

This really isnt going to solve anything. Were going to pay more for new cars. Were going to pay more for gas so the oil companies will bring in the same amount of money. Its going to make driving our older, less efficient cars more expensive. Lastly, older cars are going to have a hard time passing a emmisions test. Thanks Obama for helping us out. Wonder what he's going to do about the massive amounts of co2 that comes out thru volcanos. What about all of the factories that move overseas where there are no emmision guidelines. What a joke.

Agreed

I don't think the new emissions test are going to be retroactive. So what I take away from this is I probably wont be buying any new cars. I'll have to have a warehouse of parts to keep my used fleet running. :lol:

Does this effect Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar, etc? Or is it just American car manufacturers taking a hit? Those luxury cars don't get good gas mileage at all.

"Man, i wish this guy would just off himself already...ending the american muscle car is another one to tally for obama."

I think that really sums this article up and this guys lack of credibility. I highly doubt this guy would give Obama credit if he cured cancer nor do I believe a guy that would say something like that would report the facts. Nowhere in there did it say why the Obama Adm. thinks this will work or tries to state their side of the story.

This is a transitional period the same as the 70s were. We dont blame Nixon for the end of the muscle car era of the 60s and we shouldnt expect the president of the U.S. to worry more about the future of V8 performance cars then reducing our oil dependency. During WW2 you couldnt buy a new tire for your car much less even buy a new car. Its a time of need and there will be plenty of V8 muscle cars coming in the near future and beyond, I assure you.

"Man, i wish this guy would just off himself already...ending the american muscle car is another one to tally for obama."

I think that really sums this article up and this guys lack of credibility. I highly doubt this guy would give Obama credit if he cured cancer nor do I believe a guy that would say something like that would report the facts. Nowhere in there did it say why the Obama Adm. thinks this will work or tries to state their side of the story.


I'm pretty sure that was the OP's own comment not part of the story.

I'm not on the fence about this at all. It's about time someone dropped kicked this industry in the ballz and get it headed in the right direction. Thank you Mr. Obama! :thumb:

Am I the only one who thinks the govt should stay OUT of the industries?

Am I the only one who thinks the govt should stay OUT of the industries?

No your not but...
A) too late now
B) They were kinda forced into it as it was either watch them crumble to the ground and take out the economy in the process or try and intervene and maybe do something about it.

Being a free market, capitalist society, you'd think so. However, when they accepted the bailouts, they bartered their souls. Government bureaucracy is always such a pleasant thing to deal with. Bean counters rejoice!

You think 430 horse Camaros will keep poppin' out in a socialistic-fascist corporate state? I hope so, but who knows. These gas misers will be followed with hiked up fuel prices to readjust profit margins for tax revenue. As far as cars rising in price by 2015, shouldn't that be expected? Prices go up year to year.

Does this effect Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar, etc? Or is it just American car manufacturers taking a hit? Those luxury cars don't get good gas mileage at all.

It will apply to all. They will have to make cars that meet the requirements or.... they will be out of luck.

What this is going to do is KILL the preformace car market in the US.

Btw.... $5 or 6 per gallon for gas isn't going to happen unless the eccomeny really turns around.... which currently shows little to no progress... so I don't think we have to worry about $5 or $6 gas for some time to come.

Am I the only one who thinks the govt should stay OUT of the industries?

You say that as if corporate negligence has no impact on the state of a nations well being. We've seen the housing market collapse, millions losing their jobs, health care,income,and spending power. That has impact on your tax dollars and threatens your well being. There must by oversight and rules that need to be enforced and the govt didnt force these bailouts.

Im always amused by people that show outrage at the govt for there efforts to boost the economy and show no outrage towards the banks and other corporations whos greed began this whole mess to begin with and are dumb enough to even suggest that all govt needs to do is just let those same corp. solves the problems with our tax dollars on their own

In a perfect world the government would stay out because your average citizen would give a damn. But they don't until it directly affects them. Then they piss and moan untill someone else does something about it.

so pretty much what he said.

Having your choices restricted by way of punitive taxes is not capitalism. We can debate the definition of it, trying to pigeonhole it into socialism, facism, or whatever you want but it damn sure isn't capitalism. Capitalism is the corporation supplying that which the customer demands.

While we are blaming corporations for messing everything up let's not forget the retarded government intrusions into the various industries that started the problems in the first place. Goverment forcing mortgage companies to give loans in low income areas despite the customers ability to repay, banks trying to roll all these dangerous mortgages together into a package they can sell to someone so they can get them off their books and stay solvent...whenever there is a problem rest assured government can, will, or has made it worse.

Smaller trucks and SUVs (with smaller engines) will not have the towing capacity thereby taking away consumer choice. Cars that get better and better mileage will not have an emphasis on power or performance anymore, I am confident that the administration a.k.a. the auto industry controllers will find a way to kill power even if engineers find a way to keep it.

Having your choices restricted by way of punitive taxes is not capitalism. We can debate the definition of it, trying to pigeonhole it into socialism, facism, or whatever you want but it damn sure isn't capitalism. Capitalism is the corporation supplying that which the customer demands.

Corporations asking for govt bailouts isnt capitalism either. So whos really advocating capitalism? It would seem like capitalism works for the pro business, anti socialism crowds when all is well but when it boils down to it they are no different then an average citizen that feels helpless to stop the bleeding.

While we are blaming corporations for messing everything up let's not forget the retarded government intrusions into the various industries that started the problems in the first place. Goverment forcing mortgage companies to give loans in low income areas despite the customers ability to repay, banks trying to roll all these dangerous mortgages together into a package they can sell to someone so they can get them off their books and stay solvent...whenever there is a problem rest assured government can, will, or has made it worse.

Govt intrusion didnt force banks to offer loans to people earning near minimum wage to buy homes well beyond their means. Nor did they force insurance agents to insure the loans regardless of the inabilities to repay the loan. And allowing the large insurance agency to rate the smaller agencys to meet federal guidelines is insanity.

Let us also not forget for the last 2 years corp after corp. claimed they were in outstanding shape and in no danger of going belly-up and financial analysts gave people a false sense of urgency to buy stock and products even though they should have seen this coming. This "blame govt" business knows all nonsense is ridiculous.

While we are blaming corporations for messing everything up let's not forget the retarded government intrusions into the various industries that started the problems in the first place. Goverment forcing mortgage companies to give loans in low income areas despite the customers ability to repay, banks trying to roll all these dangerous mortgages together into a package they can sell to someone so they can get them off their books and stay solvent...whenever there is a problem rest assured government can, will, or has made it worse.

Smaller trucks and SUVs (with smaller engines) will not have the towing capacity thereby taking away consumer choice. Cars that get better and better mileage will not have an emphasis on power or performance anymore, I am confident that the administration a.k.a. the auto industry controllers will find a way to kill power even if engineers find a way to keep it.

You sure like pointing the finger at the government. Might want to take a step back and notice who's causing the problems rather than just blame the government.
It's like blaming your parents for being grounded when you yourself did something to put yourself in that position.

I'm not on the fence about this at all. It's about time someone dropped kicked this industry in the ballz and get it headed in the right direction. Thank you Mr. Obama! :thumb:

:gtfo::barf::twak::argh::turd:

:gtfo::barf::twak::argh::turd:

I like smiley's too!! :eyes:

You sure like pointing the finger at the government. Might want to take a step back and notice who's causing the problems rather than just blame the government.
It's like blaming your parents for being grounded when you yourself did something to put yourself in that position.

There are all sorts of things causing the problems. Crooked corporations are one, our "fine" government is another cancer of this country. I do blame the government for being crooks, and offering the bailouts, and giving them when the american citizens said NO. So yes you can blame the government as contributing to this mess as what they have done is unconstitutional.

You say that as if corporate negligence has no impact on the state of a nations well being. We've seen the housing market collapse, millions losing their jobs, health care,income,and spending power. That has impact on your tax dollars and threatens your well being. There must by oversight and rules that need to be enforced and the govt didnt force these bailouts.

You must mean the kind of oversight and rules used for Freddie and Fannie that prevented the housing market's collapse right? :eyes:

Im always amused by people that show outrage at the govt for there efforts to boost the economy and show no outrage towards the banks and other corporations whos greed began this whole mess to begin with and are dumb enough to even suggest that all govt needs to do is just let those same corp. solves the problems with our tax dollars on their own

Good lord, all you do is point the finger at everyone else. Who's fault is it when someone on minimum wage buys a $200k house and defaults? Its the banks fault for issuing a ridiculous sub-prime mortgage and the person who took out of the loan for spending beyond their means Both should be allowed to fail!! Unfortunately these banks were told by the government (.i.e. freddie and frannie) that those loans were guaranteed/insured... so you can't fault the banks completely because they gov't wanted them to give the loans.

And you think the government had no hand in this downfall? So you want government to do the same in the auto industry? :bang:

I don't like it but here is how i look at it.

We had 5 used trailblazers on the lot for 6 months, nobody bought them. Gas has been in the $2.30 range now for several months, all of the TB's are gone. America is in general dumb.

bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

There are all sorts of things causing the problems. Crooked corporations are one, our "fine" government is another cancer of this country. I do blame the government for being crooks, and offering the bailouts, and giving them when the american citizens said NO. So yes you can blame the government as contributing to this mess as what they have done is unconstitutional.

Just so I don't have to repeat what's already been said...

Its the banks fault for issuing a ridiculous sub-prime mortgage and the person who took out of the loan for spending beyond their means Both should be allowed to fail!!


+

America is in general dumb.


The government paints the yellow lines on the road, it's the fault of the idiot at the wheel that decides to cross the lines and cause an accident that's the idiot. Enough pointing the finger at the government when WE as a country/citizens are the ones that put ourselves in the situation we are in.


Unfortunately these banks were told by the government (.i.e. freddie and frannie) that those loans were guaranteed/insured... so you can't fault the banks completely because they gov't wanted them to give the loans.

I understand with what your saying but to me the fault still falls partly on the lenders. Their job is to assess and determine the financial viability of a borrower to repay a loan. They stopped doing their job and just approved most of the people that went to them for loans because the more they approved the richer they got. I don't care if Warren Buffet guarantee someone is "good for it". If they make minumum wage there is no way they can afford a $400,000 dollar loan...that is just common sense.
For the last four years, realtors, lenders, brokers and escrow agents were all saying the bubble is gonna burst...and when it finally does everybody points the finger at the government. American greed is primarily responsible, and that blame falls on all of us, including the government for giving us the green light but certainly is not restricted to them.

The government paints the yellow lines on the road, it's the fault of the idiot at the wheel that decides to cross the lines and cause an accident that's the idiot. Enough pointing the finger at the government when WE as a country/citizens are the ones that put ourselves in the situation we are in.

I understand with what your saying but to me the fault still falls partly on the lenders. Their job is to assess and determine the financial viability of a borrower to repay a loan. They stopped doing their job and just approved most of the people that went to them for loans because the more they approved the richer they got. I don't care if Warren Buffet guarantee someone is "good for it". If they make minumum wage there is no way they can afford a $400,000 dollar loan...that is just common sense.
For the last four years, realtors, lenders, brokers and escrow agents were all saying the bubble is gonna burst...and when it finally does everybody points the finger at the government. American greed is primarily responsible, and that blame falls on all of us, including the government for giving us the green light but certainly is not restricted to them.

In no way I am I saying that the government is solely responsible. Lenders, government, and the people of the USA are responsible. As a lender though, if your trying to do business and give people loans and someone (i.e. gov't) says I will guarantee 'X' loans to Joe Blow, the bank/lenders look at it and say "wow, now I have ZERO risk since I'm supposed to be covered under this guarantee"... Is that an extremely naive way to do business? yes, but I understand some of the logic.

My other point that I would argue with you is that most people point the finger at businesses for this crisis and "wall street" rather than government (which you are implying is taking all the blame for this). I just can't stand people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank going around saying they had nothing to do with this.... everyone is tied together and they are trying to cover up their corrupt asses.

I can only think of one thing the government does well.... our military. Everything else is a blatant inefficiency - Social security, medicare/caid, USPS, FEMA, etc... This is why I want them to have nothing to do with the auto industry, they'll find a way to make it worse IMO

In no way I am I saying that the government is solely responsible. Lenders, government, and the people of the USA are responsible. As a lender though, if your trying to do business and give people loans and someone (i.e. gov't) says I will guarantee 'X' loans to Joe Blow, the bank/lenders look at it and say "wow, now I have ZERO risk since I'm supposed to be covered under this guarantee"... Is that an extremely naive way to do business? yes, but I understand some of the logic.

My other point that I would argue with you is that most people point the finger at businesses for this crisis and "wall street" rather than government (which you are implying is taking all the blame for this). I just can't stand people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank going around saying they had nothing to do with this.... everyone is tied together and they are trying to cover up their corrupt asses.

I can only think of one thing the government does well.... our military. Everything else is a blatant inefficiency - Social security, medicare/caid, USPS, FEMA, etc... This is why I want them to have nothing to do with the auto industry, they'll find a way to make it worse IMO

I agree with everything you said! :nod:
I just get annoyed when people think that it's all someone else's fault and fail to look/criticize themselves/ourselves as part of the problem. WE did this as a country and as a people.

I agree with everything you said! :nod:
I just get annoyed when people think that it's all someone else's fault and fail to look/criticize themselves/ourselves as part of the problem. WE did this as a country and as a people.

I also agree its not just the gov at fault, its every greedy bastard that cares only for themself, and not others. . . but aren't the government officials and such the "LEADERS" of this country? . . . so then ultimately, shouldn't the blame be on them . . ?

I agree with everything you said! :nod:
I just get annoyed when people think that it's all someone else's fault and fail to look/criticize themselves/ourselves as part of the problem. WE did this as a country and as a people.

:thumb:perfectly said

I also agree its not just the gov at fault, its every greedy bastard that cares only for themself, and not others. . . but aren't the government officials and such the "LEADERS" of this country? . . . so then ultimately, shouldn't the blame be on them . . ?

I get what your saying but no I don't think they are to blame. I take responsibility for my own bonehead decisions in life and I would just like to see other people (not pointing fingers here but saying people in general) take accountability for theirs and stop blaming the government.
I don't look up to the government, I look down on them, as I think everyone else should. If an elected official doesn't perform up to what I believe he was elected to do than I will vote for someone else next time, end of story. The government did not put a gun to the head of the banks or to that of the borrower's. The government gave them the green light to make stupid decisions but who in the end made the stupid decisions...we did?
That's all I'm saying.

he is being un-realistic...
But the government owns the auto industry, so they can force them to do whatever they want. Follow the rules or fail...

very true...

At the end of the 70s when there was the gas crisis Muscle cars were still around. Sure sales dropped off and manf dropped off, but they were still there. They're not going away, your cavs and escorts and other cars will have to get better mileage now to make up for the V8s not getting as great mileage.

Think of your towns that have a crap ton of goverment cars and trucks. Do they really need all those cars, or could the survive with cars that get 50-60 miles a gallon? Does the street sweeper or the old guy who sits at your local park making sure people walk their dogs on a leash need a Ford F 350? Probabaly not.

It will be rough for a couple of years but big v8s will be around. Just think all you guys in other threads say how great the LS is, how good mileage it gets and all that jazz....
If thats really true the 8s are fine.

I'm not on the fence about this at all. It's about time someone dropped kicked this industry in the ballz and get it headed in the right direction. Thank you Mr. Obama! :thumb:

If you are so in favor of such things, what the heck are you doing on a performance car site, and not driving a prius?

:bang:

If you are so in favor of such things, what the heck are you doing on a performance car site, and not driving a prius?

:bang:

I can't be on a performance site because I'm also in favor of progress? :confused:


:gtfo:

I can't be on a performance site because I'm also in favor of progress? :confused:
I think our definitions of progress must be different.

Progress to me is determined by a lot more than paying more for vehicles just to get 10 more MPG. Progress to me is determined by more than politicians scaring people into believing our motors are destroying the world.

What does a non-governmental panel have to say about our "global climate crisis"?

On June 2, as Congress debated global warming legislation that would raise energy costs to consumers by hundreds of billions of dollars, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released an 880-page book challenging the scientific basis of concerns that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects.

In “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on which the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress rely for their regulatory proposals.

The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.

The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCC’s self-imposed deadline of May 2006.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singer’s retirement from the University of Virginia.


http://www.nipccreport.org/

Ask yourself, does the government stand to gain more power by scaring people with "climate change" and regulating the auto industry more closely? Progress indeed. :eyes:

I can't be on a performance site because I'm also in favor of progress? :confused:


:gtfo:

What you don't seem to understand is Obama and Co.'s idea of "progress" is to get rid of performance vehicles and stick us all into little putt-putts. Unless you consider being forced into these putt-putts as being progress as well....

I see no progress, I see government taking more and more control and taking away more and more freedom. But then, that is also apparently their idea of progress too.

What you don't seem to understand is Obama and Co.'s idea of "progress" is to get rid of performance vehicles and stick us all into little putt-putts. Unless you consider being forced into these putt-putts as being progress as well....

I see no progress, I see government taking more and more control and taking away more and more freedom. But then, that is also apparently their idea of progress too.

I think you need to stop reading into things that aren't there just so you can play the blame game. You read one thing and automatically assume they are coming after YOU. Yourself, as well as most other naysayers, are all for making this world a better place...as long as it doesn't involve you or cost you anything! :rolleyes:

What they are trying to do is raise the bar/standard for the industry. Last time the government pushed for such progress we went from carburated engines to Fuel injection and look at what it did for us gear heads! We didn't all start driving putt-putts and scooters did we? No, we ended gaining alot in technology and have 500hp vettes that give us 30mpg and can now routinely crank out 1000rwhp on modified V8's without having to break the bank, and in some cases they are even emissions legal.
Now this current administration is pushing for harder regulations to where we are hopefully gonna see more Direct Injection engines and technologies that will squeeze more out of fuel than we have been able to in the past. That's where we as gear head come in and take that technology and employ it for our own purposes. As far as I'm concerned nowhere did I see Obama's administration imply that we need to turn in our Camaro's and T/A's for 4 cylinder shit-boxes and surrender our freedom's! :bang:
Really how jaded can you be?

I think our definitions of progress must be different.

Progress to me is determined by a lot more than paying more for vehicles just to get 10 more MPG. Progress to me is determined by more than politicians scaring people into believing our motors are destroying the world.

What does a non-governmental panel have to say about our "global climate crisis"?

http://www.nipccreport.org/

Ask yourself, does the government stand to gain more power by scaring people with "climate change" and regulating the auto industry more closely? Progress indeed. :eyes:

NO THANK YOU for trying to bring in a Global Warming debate into this! :eyes:
And you failed to explain to me what your version of what progress is but rather gave a variety of reasons as to what progress ISN'T! :confused:
If the government scares you that's your own damn problem not mine. No where do I feel frightened by what their PR department distributes via the media.

One of the main reasons we are where we are at today is because of our leaders pushing us to do better with what we have during difficult times. Most of the greatest inventions and discovery were a direct result of government interaction and I can't understand why all of a sudden a bunch of gear heads like myself are all pissing and moaning because the government is pushing car manufacturer's into developing and designing new technologies that will run our vehicles better and more efficient. All this new "progress" will allow us to better understand, tune and gain every potential ounce of performance out of our engines than we are currently able to.

I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of Hot Rodders who can't let go of their carburated Big Blocks! :nono:

NO THANK YOU for trying to bring in a Global Warming debate into this! :eyes:
I guess you didn't read the emissions portion from the original post? Oh that's right, global warming and emissions are completely unrelated. :eyes:


And you failed to explain to me what your version of what progress is but rather gave a variety of reasons as to what progress ISN'T! :confused:
If the government scares you that's your own damn problem not mine. No where do I feel frightened by what their PR department distributes via the media.
Who in the hell takes what the government's PR department releases through the media as gospel? Big government should scare everyone. Didn't you learn anything in your history classes?


One of the main reasons we are where we are at today is because of our leaders pushing us to do better with what we have during difficult times. Most of the greatest inventions and discovery were a direct result of government interaction and I can't understand why all of a sudden a bunch of gear heads like myself are all pissing and moaning because the government is pushing car manufacturer's into developing and designing new technologies that will run our vehicles better and more efficient. All this new "progress" will allow us to better understand, tune and gain every potential ounce of performance out of our engines than we are currently able to.
You sound like Obama himself, preaching your form of "progress". We don't need government to be innovative, and I don't know where you're getting your "facts" but most inventions were NOT the "direct result of government interaction". :eyes:


I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of Hot Rodders who can't let go of their carburated Big Blocks! :nono:
I feel like I'm arguing with an environmentalist whacko who's bought into the bullshit. :nono:

If you don't like arguing with a bunch of "Hot Rodders" I can point you to another forum that might be more up your alley:
http://www.priusforum.net/index.php

Who in the hell takes what the government's PR department releases through the media as gospel? Big government should scare everyone. Didn't you learn anything in your history classes?


Yeah, the government should be scared of it's people, not the other way around.

I guess you didn't read the emissions portion from the original post? Oh that's right, global warming and emissions are completely unrelated. :eyes:


I did but obviously you didn't read the rest of the thread did you? I'm not Al Gore telling you to buy carbon credits, so don't come here spouting global warming BS. If it isn't apparent yet why I think this isn't a bad thing that the administration is pushing for this than you need to go back and re-read the previous comments I have made.


You sound like Obama himself, preaching your form of "progress". We don't need government to be innovative, and I don't know where you're getting your "facts" but most inventions were NOT the "direct result of government interaction". :eyes:


Than your an imbecile! :eyes:
I'm talking about the push for technologies and innovation that was a direct result of government interaction, not how ShamWow came about. :bang:
Nor am I in anyway implying that everything is the result of government interaction but pointing out that alot of what technologies we have to this day are a result of technologies funded by or founded by government involvement. Weren't you were preaching to me about history lessons a minute ago? The list of examples if freaking endless!

Manhattan project?
DARPA?
Cryptography?
Radar?
Rocket science?
Jet Propulsion research?
Chemistry...http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1996/biotechmitgov.html
etc...

Everything you take for granted in today's world was most likely in some degree a result of a government funded project where the technology first came about. You should think about reading some Paul Forman if you are even interested?! Not that you will...

Point is there's alot of positives to the mandates being set for by the EPA and this administration. The government has given countless billions of dollars of OUR money to these car companies and others for research purposes in order to make using alternative fuels more viable, more accurate tuning capabilities and fuel delivery systems, more efficient engine designs, etc...
This will force the car companies step forward and implement all the technologies at once rather than over time so that they can maximize the profits of releasing one technology at a time.



If you don't like arguing with a bunch of "Hot Rodders" I can point you to another forum that might be more up your alley:
http://www.priusforum.net/index.php

That's so cute... :gay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

You could learn a lot from Mr. Friedman, Spoolin. Many of your examples are political uses of technology discovered/developed by the free market (atomic bomb), or technology that the free market would have developed on its own for less money and without the use of government funds (radar, jet propulsion).

The only "progress" in Obama's plan is the progress of the agenda of increased government control of the population. Are you comfortable with the government telling you what kind of house you'll live in? Are you comfortable with the government telling you what kind of TV you'll watch? Are you comfortable with the government telling you what will be on said TV? Then why are you comfortable with the government telling you what kind of car you should drive? Is it that extreme right now? No, but those kinds of changes can't happen overnight.

Point is there's alot of positives to the mandates being set for by the EPA and this administration. The government has given countless billions of dollars of OUR money to these car companies and others for research purposes in order to make using alternative fuels more viable, more accurate tuning capabilities and fuel delivery systems, more efficient engine designs, etc...
This will force the car companies step forward and implement all the technologies at once rather than over time so that they can maximize the profits of releasing one technology at a time.
Congratulations, you've just summed up exactly what's wrong with America and the direction we're headed.

We don't need the government to take our tax dollars and decide which companies to hand them to in order to get said companies to push technology forward. Capitalism and the human spirit drive innovation; not the government.

If a company is leading the pack in technology, Americans take notice and buy their products; everybody wins! If a company starts dragging its feet, it will *and should* fail. This is the very nature of business.

You're proposing that the government is smarter than me, and that the government should decide which companies my money should be given to. It's bad enough this is already happening, but the real tragedy in all of this is the large number of people like you who actually believe this is a good thing and that we're moving forward.

If you are so in favor of such things, what the heck are you doing on a performance car site, and not driving a prius?

:bang:
I'm sorry, I didn't know being into cars automatically defined one's political views on everything. :confused:

I voted for Obama (for a lot of reasons not having to do with cars). Maybe I should ask to be banned. :ban: :rolleyes:

KeyserWS6 I couldn't agree more. If you want to see a great movie about the importance of Capitalism go here....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7PdCxSx_JY
-clean Diesel huh? why?, did they have to market it as "clean" so people would start to like it? It has always been clean. WTF

-The technology to achieve a fleet average of 30 mpg is already here. But to do that under strict emmisions standards, is not easy. Think Diesel.

-Why can't the EPA lay off us, and go worry about the massive fires/factory pollution/hazardous materials that go into our air everyday. When that's complete, come back to us, and we'll believe that you're ectually capable of making a difference. Clearly cars are not the largest contributor to pollution. But it's all apart of their plan to make us, the commons citizens responsible for their inaction in office. Somebody has to atleast "look" like they are cleaning up the mess.
-I am so sick of these new policies that have come out, and if I hear ".......in this economy." one more time. :mad:

-Seriously, why is government so concerned about the private sector? Make it fail, just to buy it back? sure has that socialist feel to it all. look what evil HAS happened in history when government steps in. Do they encourage us to follow and agree with what they think is right for "the people" or do they support and uphold the U.S. Consitution/Bill of Rights. Spoolin maybe you need a refresher read. Ask more questions, and less giving answers.
-We can argue all day about who caused GM to fail, but at LEAST we know it came from within the corporation itself.
GM should have never been here in the first place (bankrupt), but Why not just let it fail? process of natural selection?

-Where did my part of the $5.4, wait.....$9.4, wait....$13.4 billion dollars go to "keep GM alfoat", just months before it went belly up anyways? Bush/Obama said it was critical to the welfare of the country to provide the money. Yet most common people like me, knew it would fail anyways. Why try to put a band-aid on a bullet hole?
Where's my refund? :mad:

BTW: There is no difference between George Bush's and Obama's agenda. Promise you the world, then feed you excuses. Czar's being put in office now, to bypass the check/balances of our Congress and House? SSDD. you remove the Illuminati and you have a chance.

Now we all now the system has failed, and you can't prop it up anymore.

If this was a truly FREE nation we ALL would be encouraged to remove a faulty government system if it so existed, and replace with one better. It is obviously not that cut and dry, but could we do that today?

Now where's my kool-aid? :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

You could learn a lot from Mr. Friedman, Spoolin. Many of your examples are political uses of technology discovered/developed by the free market (atomic bomb), or technology that the free market would have developed on its own for less money and without the use of government funds (radar, jet propulsion).

The only "progress" in Obama's plan is the progress of the agenda of increased government control of the population. Are you comfortable with the government telling you what kind of house you'll live in? Are you comfortable with the government telling you what kind of TV you'll watch? Are you comfortable with the government telling you what will be on said TV? Then why are you comfortable with the government telling you what kind of car you should drive? Is it that extreme right now? No, but those kinds of changes can't happen overnight.

Congratulations, you've just summed up exactly what's wrong with America and the direction we're headed.

We don't need the government to take our tax dollars and decide which companies to hand them to in order to get said companies to push technology forward. Capitalism and the human spirit drive innovation; not the government.

If a company is leading the pack in technology, Americans take notice and buy their products; everybody wins! If a company starts dragging its feet, it will *and should* fail. This is the very nature of business.

You're proposing that the government is smarter than me, and that the government should decide which companies my money should be given to. It's bad enough this is already happening, but the real tragedy in all of this is the large number of people like you who actually believe this is a good thing and that we're moving forward.

What got us (the US) to this point is not the issue I'm debating because I could easily agree with 90% of the things you guys would say. I don't disagree with any of the points you both have made either. And contrary to what is believed I am opposed to government interaction in most all private sectors, this one included.

And I agree with this point vehemmently...
If a company is leading the pack in technology, Americans take notice and buy their products; everybody wins! If a company starts dragging its feet, it will *and should* fail. This is the very nature of business.

However in this particular case (w/ the Big three) I don't think it is so black and white, regardless of how much I'd like to see all three file for Chapter 7...


Point I was making was that for better or worse, government interaction (i.e. funding) in the R&D sector has always resulted in quicker developmental times of new technology. And right now, regardless of whether the big three should still be around, this industry does need a kick in the ass...period.

Point I was making was that for better or worse, government interaction (i.e. funding) in the R&D sector has always resulted in quicker developmental times of new technology. And right now, regardless of whether the big three should still be around, this industry does need a kick in the ass...period.
I don't think anybody here will argue with the notion that the industry needs a kick in the ass. Let's just make sure it's the industry that gets the kick in the ass, and not the American tax payer. What could be more of a kick in the ass to these companies than them going out of business?

On a quasi-related note, have you ever thought about starting your own car company? Just think about it for a minute: "what would happen if I tried to start my own car company?"

How could you compete with the huge automakers? The short answer is you couldn't. Perhaps when companies get so huge that they need tax-payer dollars just to stay afloat in hard economic times, it's time for them to fail. Perhaps if and when they do fail, that provides smaller companies with fresh new ideas their chance to compete in an industry that they otherwise wouldn't have a chance to compete in. By the government stepping in and bailing out these huge companies and handing them tax-payer dollars for R&D, they're eliminating any chance the little guy with some great ideas might have had of ever making it big.

Unfortunately, none of us seem to have any say in what happens anymore. Did any of you actually vote for bailouts? Did any of you actually vote for any of the countless new and insanely expensive plans being pushed through Congress? No, we're just being told by our representatives (hah!) "this is what's best for you" and we essentially have no say in where our tax dollars are being spent. We're just along for the ride until the next douchebag politician who promises more change than the other guy is elected, and then the cycle continues.

Meh.

I love the irony of people talking about "people" and the "government".

They're the same DAMN thing. They aren't some aristocracy kept in power by birthright. They're the people WE put there. So if the people suck, the government will suck. It makes perfect sense.

The general complacency and idiocy of this country has reached amazing levels. We are on the road to failure (and thus, revolution and rebuilding). I think we're well past the point of evolution resolving these issues. As is, I'm not sure if we'll go back toward a free country, or a socialist/fascist state, but we're going somewhere It's probably going to hurt too.

Oh well, I've got a right to carry, as do most people I know. We'll see how it goes.

I'm sorry, I didn't know being into cars automatically defined one's political views on everything. :confused:

I voted for Obama (for a lot of reasons not having to do with cars). Maybe I should ask to be banned. :ban: :rolleyes:

According to many members on this site, what car you drive defines your political views and your loyalty or lack of it to your country.

According to many members on this site, what car you drive defines your political views and your loyalty or lack of it to your country.
Hooray, this again. :eyes:

Does this effect Mercedes Benz, BMW, Jaguar, etc? Or is it just American car manufacturers taking a hit? Those luxury cars don't get good gas mileage at all.

Are you sure about that
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2009/04/mercedes-eyeing-%E2%80%9Cwonder-diesel%E2%80%9D-for-us/
E-class Mercedes--44mpg

http://www.autobytel.com/content/research/top10/index.cfm/action/mileage/vehicleclass/lxry/listtype/3
"Best Mileage Luxury Sedans"
1.BMW 3 Series--33mpg
2. Mercedes E Class --32mpg

I don't think anybody here will argue with the notion that the industry needs a kick in the ass. Let's just make sure it's the industry that gets the kick in the ass, and not the American tax payer. What could be more of a kick in the ass to these companies than them going out of business?

On a quasi-related note, have you ever thought about starting your own car company? Just think about it for a minute: "what would happen if I tried to start my own car company?"

How could you compete with the huge automakers? The short answer is you couldn't. Perhaps when companies get so huge that they need tax-payer dollars just to stay afloat in hard economic times, it's time for them to fail. Perhaps if and when they do fail, that provides smaller companies with fresh new ideas their chance to compete in an industry that they otherwise wouldn't have a chance to compete in. By the government stepping in and bailing out these huge companies and handing them tax-payer dollars for R&D, they're eliminating any chance the little guy with some great ideas might have had of ever making it big.

Unfortunately, none of us seem to have any say in what happens anymore. Did any of you actually vote for bailouts? Did any of you actually vote for any of the countless new and insanely expensive plans being pushed through Congress? No, we're just being told by our representatives (hah!) "this is what's best for you" and we essentially have no say in where our tax dollars are being spent. We're just along for the ride until the next douchebag politician who promises more change than the other guy is elected, and then the cycle continues.

Meh.

I hear what your saying and for a simpleton like me and you to start one it would be rather impossible. However Tesla is a new car company and they have received half a billion dollars in money from the government for them to develope a 4 door sedan electric car. So they are sharing the loot to other car companies, new ones at that.
Now I'm not gonna say I agree with that either just point it out.

According to many members on this site, what car you drive defines your political views and your loyalty or lack of it to your country.

:werd:

I voted for Obama (for a lot of reasons not having to do with cars). Maybe I should ask to be banned. :ban: :rolleyes:

:eyes:OMG..... HOW did I know???? I almost started to ask you if you voted for Obama in a thread on SSU..... but somehow I just knew. :(

It's all your fault :bang:..... and YES you should be banned. :ban: :D :devil:

lets get on topic we all know that its not the goverments fault, unfortunatly as much as we like hodrodding the world does not evolve around hotrodding, America as a whole has had it really good for years now compared to emmision standards in europe we are spoiled, we drive huge cars that are not needed, we have the tecnology to make more efficient cars we just dont want to do it. some of our trucks and suvs wont even fit in a two way lane in other parts of the world. he have to think smaller, power to weight ratio, thats the awnswer. Im originally fromsouth america a third world country like brazil we been living on e85 for decades,its time America used its resources, the answer is not in one tecnology but several.....I lived in California for a while and its just going to be like that now everywhere....we had it good for over 50 years now its time to get in line with the rest of the world, muscle cars are eventually going to made like seadoos, sportsbikes and other for recreational purposes, to save them we must bring ouut this tecnology and push all these lazy fucks too do it, maybe also stop being so damn fat so we can fit in a regular sized car and that includes myself.......I wasnt born in USA but i feel like i am one stop blaming the goverment for all these bad desicions that we make as companies and people...when everybody does well is because they did it, but when shit goies south some of you are the first to blame the goverment.....

Govt intrusion didnt force banks to offer loans to people earning near minimum wage to buy homes well beyond their means.

Actually this is exactly what happened. The bubble the burst in 2008 began in the mid-late 1990s after MAJOR changes were made to U.S. housing policy.

The guidelines for the infamous CRA were basically re-written, creating even more stringent and difficult measures that had to be met by banks in terms of their home loan portfolio's "diversity."

Harvard did a study to see the effect. As of 2008, Minorities make up 25% of the population. Obviously this has increased every year and they made up much less than 25% of the population in the mid-late 1990s. Yet from 1995-2005, minorities accounted for 50% of all new home loans. Without government interference they obviously should have accounted for 25% of new home loans (or even less than 25% because they have lower average income than whites)

So at least 25-30% if not more of ALL home loans made from 1995-2005 are loans that would not have been made and should not have been made but were thanks to nanny government. Obviously not ALL home loans made in that period were bad loans. In fact only a fraction were bad. The current recession is about as bad as it gets and pretty much almost the worst case scenario, and the % of mortgages in default + those currently in danger of going into default is less than 25-30%

Of course these changes alone weren't enough to get the ball rolling. The GSE played a vital role. Aside from having Robert Rubin re-write CRA guidelines, Clinton had HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo make major changes with Fanny/Freddy from 1997-2001 when he left office. BIG changes were made that allowed Fanny/Freddy to make BIG waves in the sub-prime mortgage market. In addition, as opposed to 10% like banks, Fanny/Freddy now were required to only hold 2.5% of capital to back their investments.

By the time all was said and done a decade later (today) the GSE, quasi government agencies ran by idiot political hacks and under ZERO SEC supervision, owned or guaranteed literally HALF of the $12 TRILLION dollar U.S. mortgage market.

Did some banks make bad decision in the past decade? Yes. Did people who actually had plenty of money contributed by over-leveraging themselves and taking out additional mortgages for investment properties? Yes. But this was primarily a GOVERNMENT created bubble. Sub-prime mortgages and primary residence loans were the brunt of the mess.

In order for the housing bubble (artificially inflating housing prices) to happen, you needed artificially created DEMAND. The government did just that, through the GSE and through legislation. Thousands and thousands of people who were not potential buyers suddenly became buyers and flooded the market.

And of course along the way government continued to help the bubble grow. That IMBECILE Bernanke helped with low interest rates. The S.O.B. poured fuel on the fire until the very end when anyone with a clue could see what was coming. Bush and the Republicans tried for GSE reform multiple times, but when the Democrats killed it in committee they didn't exactly scream bloody murder and then when election time came around Bush happily re-branded the Clinton policy he simply never changed as his own - "ownership society," and boasted over home ownership increases and minority home ownership increases to aid in reelection.


http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u138/willbridges1982/HousingBubbleGraph.png

Im always amused by people that show outrage at the govt for there efforts to boost the economy and show no outrage towards the banks and other corporations whos greed began this whole mess to begin with and are dumb enough to even suggest that all govt needs to do is just let those same corp. solves the problems with our tax dollars on their own

I'm amused by people that show outrage at American businesses for simply performing their sole function, seeking profit, and show no outrage towards the government officials and politicians whos ignorance and greed began this whole mess to begin with and are dumb enough to suggest that all we need to do is let the same clowns who delivered this mess interfere and screw things up even more.

As for the auto industry, the government SHOULD have bailed out GM. They broke it. Unions are great and I'm all for freedom of association and the right to organize, but problems arise when the government plays favorites and strips the other side, management and the firm, of their rights, which is EXACTLY what happened.


2007 Profit/Loss GM vs. Toyota:

GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles
Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles

GM profit/loss in 2007: -$38,730,000,000 (-$4,055 per car)
Toyota profit in 2007: +$17,146,000,000 (+$1,874 per car)


GMs costs were simply too high thanks to the fact that they were supporting 10 retirees with fat pensions for every 1 current worker. They were forced into these terrible deals over the years because they had their arms tied behind their back by government, and those in power received HEAVY support and $$$ contributions from the UAW.

These are simple facts. The numbers don't lie. They HAVE been making "cars people want to buy" and HAVE had good enough sales. They simply lost money on most vehicles because their costs were too high.

Their choices were to price vehicles competitively and die a slow death, or price vehicles to cover costs and create profit and sell almost nothing and die immediately. They choose the first, because they were actually in position to hang on for dear life long enough to get out from under a lot of their burdensome legacy costs. The recession threw a monkey wrench into that, and they no longer were in position to hold out long enough.

Obviously they have made bad moves independent of this in the past, obviously they have out out some bad products over the years. But I find it laughable that people ignore reality and ignore the numbers and actually try to use anecdotal evidence of bad cars and poor models here and there over the years to support the b.s. talking point of "making cars people don't want to buy." Over the last few decades combined were they ran as well as Toyota? Hell no. Were they ran well enough to be a profitable and successful car company? Hell yes. The proof is in the numbers, the cold hard facts and data. Legacy costs killed GM, period. GM was forced into those terrible deals with the UAW, period. Government stripped them of their rights and played favorites.

lets get on topic we all know that its not the goverments fault, unfortunatly as much as we like hodrodding the world does not evolve around hotrodding, America as a whole has had it really good for years now compared to emmision standards in europe we are spoiled, we drive huge cars that are not needed, we have the tecnology to make more efficient cars we just dont want to do it. some of our trucks and suvs wont even fit in a two way lane in other parts of the world. he have to think smaller, power to weight ratio, thats the awnswer. Im originally fromsouth america a third world country like brazil we been living on e85 for decades,its time America used its resources, the answer is not in one tecnology but several.....I lived in California for a while and its just going to be like that now everywhere....we had it good for over 50 years now its time to get in line with the rest of the world, muscle cars are eventually going to made like seadoos, sportsbikes and other for recreational purposes, to save them we must bring ouut this tecnology and push all these lazy fucks too do it, maybe also stop being so damn fat so we can fit in a regular sized car and that includes myself.......I wasnt born in USA but i feel like i am one stop blaming the goverment for all these bad desicions that we make as companies and people...when everybody does well is because they did it, but when shit goies south some of you are the first to blame the goverment.....

Wow... Is it wrong to want to prosper? To enjoy life? It was great to live in a country that allowed us the option to "be fat" if we want to. Americans enjoy their vehicles. Just because other countries drive around in tin cans does not mean we should have to. I suppose the next thing you are going to tell us is that the Superbowl should be a soccer game instead of American football.
Oh, and BTW - google how much fossil fuel it takes to process ethenol from start to finish and all of the sudden, your E85 isn't so environmentally friendly. Hopefully, in the future, refining ethenol becomes more efficient (currently being addressed) - but as it is, the decades E85 has been used in Brazil has probably caused just as much damage as if those vehicles were running on gasoline.

In the beginning, I really felt Obama was just ignorant, an idiot that didn't know better. But now I firmly believe his goal is to to sink the american auto industry among other things. Why give bailouts when 1)the american people did not approve, and 2)the stats and predictions indicated the bailouts were not going to prevent the companies from going under anyways. But by giving the bailouts, it allowed uncle sam control.

I am for improving gas milage and emissions, but in these trying economical times, it makes little to no sense. Its apearently ok to let companies move their plants to china and pump out all the smog they want, unregulated. How about going after them first, then push higher standard on autos when the economy turns around? Oh - to those that think it will help your wallet in gas savings, think again. I garrentee we will see much higher fuel taxes. They have gone so far as to even try to get GPSs in every car to track how many miles you drive and tax you per mile. But luckily, Obama said no to that idea(probably the one good decision he's made).

It's also frustrating to see bailout money used to create short lived jobs such as road contruction. Why not use the money to get some of the jobs back we have lost to other countries, and create long term jobs in the US? Instead, they see it more fit to further hinder the automakers and make money off of traffic light cameras

lets get on topic we all know that its not the goverments fault, unfortunatly as much as we like hodrodding the world does not evolve around hotrodding, America as a whole has had it really good for years now compared to emmision standards in europe we are spoiled, we drive huge cars that are not needed, we have the tecnology to make more efficient cars we just dont want to do it. some of our trucks and suvs wont even fit in a two way lane in other parts of the world. he have to think smaller, power to weight ratio, thats the awnswer. Im originally fromsouth america a third world country like brazil we been living on e85 for decades,its time America used its resources, the answer is not in one tecnology but several.....I lived in California for a while and its just going to be like that now everywhere....we had it good for over 50 years now its time to get in line with the rest of the world, muscle cars are eventually going to made like seadoos, sportsbikes and other for recreational purposes, to save them we must bring ouut this tecnology and push all these lazy fucks too do it, maybe also stop being so damn fat so we can fit in a regular sized car and that includes myself.......I wasnt born in USA but i feel like i am one stop blaming the goverment for all these bad desicions that we make as companies and people...when everybody does well is because they did it, but when shit goies south some of you are the first to blame the goverment.....

:werd: thank you! :nod:

lets get on topic we all know that its not the goverments fault, unfortunatly as much as we like hodrodding the world does not evolve around hotrodding, America as a whole has had it really good for years now compared to emmision standards in europe we are spoiled, we drive huge cars that are not needed, we have the tecnology to make more efficient cars we just dont want to do it. some of our trucks and suvs wont even fit in a two way lane in other parts of the world. he have to think smaller, power to weight ratio, thats the awnswer. Im originally fromsouth america a third world country like brazil we been living on e85 for decades,its time America used its resources, the answer is not in one tecnology but several.....I lived in California for a while and its just going to be like that now everywhere....we had it good for over 50 years now its time to get in line with the rest of the world, muscle cars are eventually going to made like seadoos, sportsbikes and other for recreational purposes, to save them we must bring ouut this tecnology and push all these lazy fucks too do it, maybe also stop being so damn fat so we can fit in a regular sized car and that includes myself.......I wasnt born in USA but i feel like i am one stop blaming the goverment for all these bad desicions that we make as companies and people...when everybody does well is because they did it, but when shit goies south some of you are the first to blame the goverment.....

As for the auto industry, the government SHOULD have bailed out GM. They broke it. Unions are great and I'm all for freedom of association and the right to organize, but problems arise when the government plays favorites and strips the other side, management and the firm, of their rights, which is EXACTLY what happened.


2007 Profit/Loss GM vs. Toyota:

GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles
Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles

GM profit/loss in 2007: -$38,730,000,000 (-$4,055 per car)
Toyota profit in 2007: +$17,146,000,000 (+$1,874 per car)


GMs costs were simply too high thanks to the fact that they were supporting 10 retirees with fat pensions for every 1 current worker. They were forced into these terrible deals over the years because they had their arms tied behind their back by government, and those in power received HEAVY support and $$$ contributions from the UAW.

These are simple facts. The numbers don't lie. They HAVE been making "cars people want to buy" and HAVE had good enough sales. They simply lost money on most vehicles because their costs were too high.

Their choices were to price vehicles competitively and die a slow death, or price vehicles to cover costs and create profit and sell almost nothing and die immediately. They choose the first, because they were actually in position to hang on for dear life long enough to get out from under a lot of their burdensome legacy costs. The recession threw a monkey wrench into that, and they no longer were in position to hold out long enough.

Obviously they have made bad moves independent of this in the past, obviously they have out out some bad products over the years. But I find it laughable that people ignore reality and ignore the numbers and actually try to use anecdotal evidence of bad cars and poor models here and there over the years to support the b.s. talking point of "making cars people don't want to buy." Over the last few decades combined were they ran as well as Toyota? Hell no. Were they ran well enough to be a profitable and successful car company? Hell yes. The proof is in the numbers, the cold hard facts and data. Legacy costs killed GM, period. GM was forced into those terrible deals with the UAW, period. Government stripped them of their rights and played favorites.

:stupid: :thumb:
:hail:

Wow... Is it wrong to want to prosper? To enjoy life? It was great to live in a country that allowed us the option to "be fat" if we want to. Americans enjoy their vehicles. Just because other countries drive around in tin cans does not mean we should have to. I suppose the next thing you are going to tell us is that the Superbowl should be a soccer game instead of American football.
Oh, and BTW - google how much fossil fuel it takes to process ethenol from start to finish and all of the sudden, your E85 isn't so environmentally friendly. Hopefully, in the future, refining ethenol becomes more efficient (currently being addressed) - but as it is, the decades E85 has been used in Brazil has probably caused just as much damage as if those vehicles were running on gasoline.

In the beginning, I really felt Obama was just ignorant, an idiot that didn't know better. But now I firmly believe his goal is to to sink the american auto industry among other things. Why give bailouts when 1)the american people did not approve, and 2)the stats and predictions indicated the bailouts were not going to prevent the companies from going under anyways. But by giving the bailouts, it allowed uncle sam control.

I am for improving gas milage and emissions, but in these trying economical times, it makes little to no sense. Its apearently ok to let companies move their plants to china and pump out all the smog they want, unregulated. How about going after them first, then push higher standard on autos when the economy turns around? Oh - to those that think it will help your wallet in gas savings, think again. I garrentee we will see much higher fuel taxes. They have gone so far as to even try to get GPSs in every car to track how many miles you drive and tax you per mile. But luckily, Obama said no to that idea(probably the one good decision he's made).

It's also frustrating to see bailout money used to create short lived jobs such as road contruction. Why not use the money to get some of the jobs back we have lost to other countries, and create long term jobs in the US? Instead, they see it more fit to further hinder the automakers and make money off of traffic light cameras


Translation = ME > Everyone else.
That is what it all boils down to. Nobody wants to compromise in this country. Truth is this world is getting more and more crowded and we as Americans are so consumed with what is mine and what do I have coming to me... that greed and selfishness is what American is known for now.

All your solutions don't solve any of the root problems.

Translation = ME > Everyone else.
That is what it all boils down to. Nobody wants to compromise in this country. Truth is this world is getting more and more crowded and we as Americans are so consumed with what is mine and what do I have coming to me... that greed and selfishness is what American is known for now.

All your solutions don't solve any of the root problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

Translation = ME > Everyone else.
That is what it all boils down to. Nobody wants to compromise in this country. Truth is this world is getting more and more crowded and we as Americans are so consumed with what is mine and what do I have coming to me... that greed and selfishness is what American is known for now.

All your solutions don't solve any of the root problems.

That's your opinion, mine is this: The greed and selfishness comes from those that want to take from others that have done well for themselves.
Point in fact: I have worked very hard to get to where I am at, paid my dues, never have been fired from a job and have given 110%. My parents did not pay for my education, my time in the service did. There are many others in the same boat. But instead of being rewarded for this (selfishness as you say), it gets taken. It is not our fault somebody had 7 kids with 7 different fathers. But we still have to pay towards welfare and healthcare.

We have been doing nothing but comprimising in this country... We have watched thousands of jobs moved over seas. We have watched our rights to fire arms continually dwindle. We HAVE to wear our seat belts or face a ticket. We HAVE to pay into a social security system that will probably never do any of us any good.

You are right, my solutions do not fix the root problem. But what can you do to fix people wanting something for nothing? How do you fix the double standards that happen both in the US and globally? How can you get me to be ok with watching hundreds of thousands of people around you lose their jobs, lose their homes, lose their cars? And then tell them when they do get a job again, it's going to pay less, their checks taxed more, and the cost of a car be more because of these new standards. All while some of them may have watched their old jobs go to china where the plant it producing twice the emissions.

That's your opinion, mine is this: The greed and selfishness comes from those that want to take from others that have done well for themselves.
Point in fact: I have worked very hard to get to where I am at, paid my dues, never have been fired from a job and have given 110%. My parents did not pay for my education, my time in the service did. There are many others in the same boat. But instead of being rewarded for this (selfishness as you say), it gets taken. It is not our fault somebody had 7 kids with 7 different fathers. But we still have to pay towards welfare and healthcare.

We have been doing nothing but comprimising in this country... We have watched thousands of jobs moved over seas. We have watched our rights to fire arms continually dwindle. We HAVE to wear our seat belts or face a ticket. We HAVE to pay into a social security system that will probably never do any of us any good.

You are right, my solutions do not fix the root problem. But what can you do to fix people wanting something for nothing? How do you fix the double standards that happen both in the US and globally? How can you get me to be ok with watching hundreds of thousands of people around you lose their jobs, lose their homes, lose their cars? And then tell them when they do get a job again, it's going to pay less, their checks taxed more, and the cost of a car be more because of these new standards. All while some of them may have watched their old jobs go to china where the plant it producing twice the emissions.

Regarding the examples you give I'm in the same boat you are. I do agree that SocSecurity is a waste, welfare, etc... are all failed government enterprizes. Not so much on theory but on the application of it. Not that I'm not a fan of a huge socialized systems anyways. I can see the benefit of a few of them but most don't belong in this country.

People in general are too content to rest on their laurels, and have to be forced to change or it will never happen. Every great change in this country's (relatively short) history has been forced on the majority of people by the minority. And as soon as the majority is forced to do things a different way, it becomes the new "standard" and people wonder how/why it was ever any different.

If that includes being mandated to drive around a economy car,that cant even run a 13 second 1/4 mile on a 100 shot of nitrous oxide you can count me out.I would rather ride a bus or even walk to work than to own something with no power(lol).

That's your opinion, mine is this: The greed and selfishness comes from those that want to take from others that have done well for themselves.
Point in fact: I have worked very hard to get to where I am at, paid my dues, never have been fired from a job and have given 110%. My parents did not pay for my education, my time in the service did. There are many others in the same boat. But instead of being rewarded for this (selfishness as you say), it gets taken. It is not our fault somebody had 7 kids with 7 different fathers. But we still have to pay towards welfare and healthcare.

We have been doing nothing but comprimising in this country... We have watched thousands of jobs moved over seas. We have watched our rights to fire arms continually dwindle. We HAVE to wear our seat belts or face a ticket. We HAVE to pay into a social security system that will probably never do any of us any good.



Well my opinion is that you're doing what is often the dishonest and unfair method of discussing these issues as thoughtful and adult human beings. Too often this discussion of social programs and the recipients of these programs turn into a uneducated rant of the self-righteous.

You cant cherry pick by only highlighting the abusers of society and claim that their bad deeds alone are proof of why these programs are failures nor is it fair to claim that the people using those programs are only doing so because they arent trying hard enough or at least as hard as you are and only seek free hand outs. If people like you were a little more thoughtful towards others you might realize that this is a debate over whether or not a human being is born with the same capabilities and intelligence as every other person. In my opinion there are brilliant people born and not so brilliant people born and everything in between. And to think a person lazy and a burden on society because they struggled to learn in school and weren't wealthy enough to afford a college ed. and yet they want to work is shameful. And I would go so far as to say many that have these views have never lived in areas like s.c.l.a. or Detroit

Well my opinion is that you're doing what is often the dishonest and unfair method of discussing these issues as thoughtful and adult human beings. Too often this discussion of social programs and the recipients of these programs turn into a uneducated rant of the self-righteous.

You cant cherry pick by only highlighting the abusers of society and claim that their bad deeds alone are proof of why these programs are failures nor is it fair to claim that the people using those programs are only doing so because they arent trying hard enough or at least as hard as you are and only seek free hand outs. If people like you were a little more thoughtful towards others you might realize that this is a debate over whether or not a human being is born with the same capabilities and intelligence as every other person. In my opinion there are brilliant people born and not so brilliant people born and everything in between. And to think a person lazy and a burden on society because they struggled to learn in school and weren't wealthy enough to afford a college ed. and yet they want to work is shameful. And I would go so far as to say many that have these views have never lived in areas like s.c.l.a. or Detroit
FYI, you don't need to be wealthy to get a college education. There's things like financial aid, scholarships, grants, and student loans to pay for college.

Now let's have an exercise in practicality. Name one government run social program that doesn't suck. Name one thing the government does that it doesn't suck at (aside from the military).

Here's a little something I got in an email a couple weeks ago.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering,
blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

So I ask you. When the government takes half your paycheck to pay for whatever social programs, how are you going to feel? I know I'd be pissed if I worked for $15/hour but only got to take home $7.50/hour. I don't know about you, but I say fuck that.

FYI, you don't need to be wealthy to get a college education. There's things like financial aid, scholarships, grants, and student loans to pay for college.

Those programs were out of control as well until the govt offered a public aid and that began a process of keeping the private lenders in line with rates. Either way we cant throw money at aid for college and use that as an excuse to bad mouth people that lack college degrees. There are people in this world that dont have the natural intelligence to go and get a college degree as well as those with learning disabilities but are far from mentally handicapped. You cant just dismiss people like this.

Now let's have an exercise in practicality. Name one government run social program that doesn't suck. Name one thing the government does that it doesn't suck at (aside from the military).

Police, Fire, U.S. mail, and you cant just remove the military from that discussion because thats further proof that the programs work when proper effort is put into it


So I ask you. When the government takes half your paycheck to pay for whatever social programs, how are you going to feel? I know I'd be pissed if I worked for $15/hour but only got to take home $7.50/hour. I don't know about you, but I say fuck that.

Now youre just throwing a hypothetical on paying for something that doesnt even exist. I dont think anyones asking for a large number of new social programs paid for entirely by tax payers. I do however think bitter election losers are grossly over exaggerating what one persons belief structure is.

...An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering,
blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.


That's actually a pretty good story!! I could definitely see that swaying a few people's opinions if they were on the fence about socialism. However that is a little black and white compared to real-life applications but regardless it's a very good interpretation and analogy of what socialism can do.
Personally I don't have a problem with some social programs but do have a problem with most of them.

That's actually a pretty good story!! I could definitely see that swaying a few people's opinions if they were on the fence about socialism. However that is a little black and white compared to real-life applications but regardless it's a very good interpretation and analogy of what socialism can do.
Personally I don't have a problem with some social programs but do have a problem with most of them.

Very black and white indeed!! I dont see it as being an fair example of "Socialism". Either way what his example is talking about is the payoff for hard work and misses the main point that others get up and go to work everyday and work just as hard as anyone else for much less money. I find it very disingenuous to claim that having some social programs makes us a socialist country. By that logic we'd have to recognize U.K. and Canada as Socialist countries

Those programs were out of control as well until the govt offered a public aid and that began a process of keeping the private lenders in line with rates. Either way we cant throw money at aid for college and use that as an excuse to bad mouth people that lack college degrees. There are people in this world that dont have the natural intelligence to go and get a college degree as well as those with learning disabilities but are far from mentally handicapped. You cant just dismiss people like this.
Who's bad-mouthing people without college degrees? My grandfather doesn't have a college degree, but managed to raise 6 kids. My dad didn't get a degree until he was close to or in his 30's. Plenty of people I know don't have college degrees but they can get their shit done and take care of themselves without the government babysitting them.


Police, Fire, U.S. mail, and you cant just remove the military from that discussion because thats further proof that the programs work when proper effort is put into it
Police system sucks. Their priorities are all mixed up and a lot of them are assholes on power trips when in uniform. That being said, my uncle and cousin (his son) are both cops and good people.

Fire system I've not had much experience with. Around me, it's all volunteer so it's not really run by the government.

USPS absolutely sucks. I can't believe you even suggested it. I don't use it unless I absolutely have to. No tracking number unless you pay $10 extra, shit continually getting lost in transit, pathetically slow shipping time, and they're typically more expensive than UPS and FedEx and slower to boot.

I excluded the military because everything except combat training is done by the private sector. All their weapons, tools, ships, tanks, planes, etc are all made by the private sector.


Now youre just throwing a hypothetical on paying for something that doesnt even exist. I dont think anyones asking for a large number of new social programs paid for entirely by tax payers. I do however think bitter election losers are grossly over exaggerating what one persons belief structure is.
The government already takes 20-35% of people's paychecks. How the fuck do you think they're going to pay for the healthcare program? Last time I checked, medical care was expensive.

http://commendatori.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/socialism_poster.jpg

If that includes being mandated to drive around a economy car,that cant even run a 13 second 1/4 mile on a 100 shot of nitrous oxide you can count me out.I would rather ride a bus or even walk to work than to own something with no power(lol).

Technological advances don't mean it's gonna be slower. Fuel injection brought more power and better tuning, did it not?

Technological advances don't mean it's gonna be slower. Fuel injection brought more power and better tuning, did it not?
Yea, but my fuel injected Saturn is still slow as shit. I'd be ecstatic if it could click off a 15 second quarter mile.

The problem isn't the technology. The problem is our politicians thinking they can legislate physics.

Yea, but my fuel injected Saturn is still slow as shit. I'd be ecstatic if it could click off a 15 second quarter mile.

The problem isn't the technology. The problem is our politicians thinking they can legislate physics.

No they don't, and that's not at all what they are about. Now your just blinded by ur hatred of this administration.

Who's bad-mouthing people without college degrees? My grandfather doesn't have a college degree, but managed to raise 6 kids. My dad didn't get a degree until he was close to or in his 30's. Plenty of people I know don't have college degrees but they can get their shit done and take care of themselves without the government babysitting them.


Oh I see. So you have no issue with people that lack advanced education beyond high school you just have a problem with people that would dare use a govt social program to ease their financial burdens because people shouldnt have to use those programs if they werent so lazy. So when you see collections or benefits to help with medical expenses for people with cancer or injuries you must just assume that they too are lazy and would otherwise not need help to pay for such expenses if they would just get their act together. So are you suggesting that the only ones that believe in a single payer health care system are lazy??


Police system sucks. Their priorities are all mixed up and a lot of them are assholes on power trips when in uniform. That being said, my uncle and cousin (his son) are both cops and good people.

Fire system I've not had much experience with. Around me, it's all volunteer so it's not really run by the government.

USPS absolutely sucks. I can't believe you even suggested it. I don't use it unless I absolutely have to. No tracking number unless you pay $10 extra, shit continually getting lost in transit, pathetically slow shipping time, and they're typically more expensive than UPS and FedEx and slower to boot.

I excluded the military because everything except combat training is done by the private sector. All their weapons, tools, ships, tanks, planes, etc are all made by the private sector.



The government already takes 20-35% of people's paychecks. How the fuck do you think they're going to pay for the healthcare program? Last time I checked, medical care was expensive.



No one has ever suggested a tax increase on anyone earning under $250K to cover a public option and I doubt that a major tax increase would be implemented to pay for it or otherwise that administration would find themselves outta office in a hurry. If we become a single payer country it will be a slow and careful process. As far as your views towards usps/police/fire ect. go those arent very good examples of their failures as systems. I think we do a decent of effectively policing our country and I would rather have that then a private police force and Ive never lost a letter in the mail and I use the usps all the time. And the military cant be dismissed because it contracts private sector. I firmly believe that the same ideas can be applied in a tax payer based health system. I think ya might wanna consider the fact that our ideals may not be as different as you may think. I often wonder if people with a viewpoint like yours that fear govt actively working on behalf of the people for the people and see it as oppressive govt. Because when people such as yourself refer to a leftist style of governing as "socialist" I feel that what you really mean is that its "communist" but it makes you sound crazy if you say it so you say socialist in stead. But you still can try and frighten people with images of Karl Marx or Stalin

No they don't, and that's not at all what they are about. Now your just blinded by ur hatred of this administration.
So if they're not trying to legislate physics, please explain CAFE.

Oh I see. So you have no issue with people that lack advanced education beyond high school you just have a problem with people that would dare use a govt social program to ease their financial burdens because people shouldnt have to use those programs if they werent so lazy. So when you see collections or benefits to help with medical expenses for people with cancer or injuries you must just assume that they too are lazy and would otherwise not need help to pay for such expenses if they would just get their act together. So are you suggesting that the only ones that believe in a single payer health care system are lazy??
There's a difference between using a government social program because you need to (i.e. unemployment after unexpectedly losing your job) and leeching off the system (i.e. having another baby so you can get a larger welfare check). And on another forum that I'm on (which shall remain nameless), they set up a donation fund for a forum member that was diagnosed with cancer, and guess what, I donated. I'm not a heartless asshole, I just hate having my money taken from me against my will.

I don't want to pay for some bitch's 4th baby because she needs a bigger check to feed her crack habit. The problem is the way the system is set up. There's no motivation to get off welfare. If you suddenly get a job, then BAM! no more welfare check. And often times the jobs that people on welfare can typically get don't pay as much as welfare does, so instead of getting a job and contributing to society, they're actually better off just staying on welfare.


No one has ever suggested a tax increase on anyone earning under $250K to cover a public option and I doubt that a major tax increase would be implemented to pay for it or otherwise that administration would find themselves outta office in a hurry. If we become a single payer country it will be a slow and careful process. As far as your views towards usps/police/fire ect. go those arent very good examples of their failures as systems. I think we do a decent of effectively policing our country and I would rather have that then a private police force and Ive never lost a letter in the mail and I use the usps all the time. And the military cant be dismissed because it contracts private sector. I firmly believe that the same ideas can be applied in a tax payer based health system. I think ya might wanna consider the fact that our ideals may not be as different as you may think. I often wonder if people with a viewpoint like yours that fear govt actively working on behalf of the people for the people and see it as oppressive govt. Because when people such as yourself refer to a leftist style of governing as "socialist" I feel that what you really mean is that its "communist" but it makes you sound crazy if you say it so you say socialist in stead. But you still can try and frighten people with images of Karl Marx or Stalin
A government works for the people's best interest very very rarely. Everything I've seen the government do in the past 10 years has done more to hurt the people's rights and liberties than it has helped. Maybe you forget that this country was founded on LIMITED GOVERNMENT and the FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE. Everything the government has done in recent years has pushed it further and further into my wallet. I want it the fuck out of my wallet, out of my home, and out of my life. What I do with my money, my time, and myself is none of the government's god damned business. I don't need the government to pay for my doctor's visits. It's only a matter of time after the federal healthcare shit is passed until the government decides which doctors you can see, and whether or not you really need that MRI or surgery. All this is is more government interference and I reject it with every ounce of my being.

So if they're not trying to legislate physics, please explain CAFE.

If that's really what you got out of the CAFE regulations that you need to do one of two things, READ the damn regulations (cuz I'm not about to paraphrase if for you) or learn to read. :eyes:

There's a difference between using a government social program because you need to (i.e. unemployment after unexpectedly losing your job) and leeching off the system (i.e. having another baby so you can get a larger welfare check). And on another forum that I'm on (which shall remain nameless), they set up a donation fund for a forum member that was diagnosed with cancer, and guess what, I donated. I'm not a heartless asshole, I just hate having my money taken from me against my will.

I don't want to pay for some bitch's 4th baby because she needs a bigger check to feed her crack habit. The problem is the way the system is set up. There's no motivation to get off welfare. If you suddenly get a job, then BAM! no more welfare check. And often times the jobs that people on welfare can typically get don't pay as much as welfare does, so instead of getting a job and contributing to society, they're actually better off just staying on welfare.

You cant just have your only defense be clinging to the abusers of the system. If you'd just look closely you'd see its not the mothers with 6 kids on welfare that want a single payer. Its people like you that go to work everyday and have families and work hard and are paying for insurance on wages that cant support the cost and dont cover critical needs of themselves. I agree with you fully that the system is flawed and does little to ease people off welfare but it also keeps millions qualified for medicaid as well so not only are you paying their welfare but youre paying the health care any way. So why not just have that pay for just the health care and have them off welfare??



A government works for the people's best interest very very rarely. Everything I've seen the government do in the past 10 years has done more to hurt the people's rights and liberties than it has helped. Maybe you forget that this country was founded on LIMITED GOVERNMENT and the FREEDOM OF THE PEOPLE. Everything the government has done in recent years has pushed it further and further into my wallet. I want it the fuck out of my wallet, out of my home, and out of my life. What I do with my money, my time, and myself is none of the government's god damned business. I don't need the government to pay for my doctor's visits. It's only a matter of time after the federal healthcare shit is passed until the government decides which doctors you can see, and whether or not you really need that MRI or surgery. All this is is more government interference and I reject it with every ounce of my being.

The true principles this country was founded on were argued constantly by the very people that created our country after the constitution was ratified and many of those same men believed that slavery was their protected right as an American so those arguments never impress me. And you are aware that under private health coverage you are already only allowed to go where they tell you and only allowed to have procedures when they are considered necessary. And they do have a legal right not to insure you if you if you have one of millions of pre existing conditions or are to fat or thin or tall ect. They are trying to make a profit and what is not spent on you is their profit and they do give bonuses to their workers for denying you care and people have actually died from this so that argument is a tough one for ya as well.

The problem with your argument is that when the government gets in hands in another private sector, it eliminates competition thereby causing an inefficiency. Nothing the government does is efficient, nothing, especially the policies our government has made in regards to health care. Medicare? Medicaid? prescription coverage? All are out of control spending deficits and will only worsen with an aging population. Just listen to the CBO estimates of what it will cost, and they are underestimating it. Do you remember how much congress thought Medicare and Medicaid were going to cost? They were off by 100-200%... Its beyond me how logic has escaped our government leaders, both sides of the aisle, we simply can't afford any of this. Further, its not in the Constitution... (which stands for almost nothing anymore).

But by all means, please explain to me how we can afford it... I'll be right here waving the "I told you so" flag two years from now when hyper-inflation hits. One by one, state's are already becoming bankrupt. Why? because the budgets they created were set on an economy that would never contract. Government revenues are down dramatically, but you suggest we enslave our children more with more debt for a health care system that will cost 1-2 TRILLION more at least?

The problem with your argument is that when the government gets in hands in another private sector, it eliminates competition thereby causing an inefficiency. Nothing the government does is efficient, nothing, especially the policies our government has made in regards to health care. Medicare? Medicaid? prescription coverage? All are out of control spending deficits and will only worsen with an aging population. Just listen to the CBO estimates of what it will cost, and they are underestimating it. Do you remember how much congress thought Medicare and Medicaid were going to cost? They were off by 100-200%... Its beyond me how logic has escaped our government leaders, both sides of the aisle, we simply can't afford any of this. Further, its not in the Constitution... (which stands for almost nothing anymore).

But by all means, please explain to me how we can afford it... I'll be right here waving the "I told you so" flag two years from now when hyper-inflation hits. One by one, state's are already becoming bankrupt. Why? because the budgets they created were set on an economy that would never contract. Government revenues are down dramatically, but you suggest we enslave our children more with more debt for a health care system that will cost 1-2 TRILLION more at least?

A womans right to vote was never in the constitution either...so whats your point? The CBO cost analysis only measures paying for a public option at current levels of income. It doesnt include the administrations plan to compensate $544million of that cost with a tax increase on very top level and then resetting the tax levels to the Clinton adm. levels which would then add $740million to the income. Other ideas have included making business cover some of it which im opposed to since business will have an extremely difficult time qualifying for it. From someone such as yourself to argue about our national debt is quite disingenuous since you were the ones that voted for the people that took a 5.8 trillion dollar surplus and made it a multi trillion dollar debt and would still vote for the same people today.

All I see is wannabess00 taking apples, comparing them to oranges, then trying to pass it off as a valid analogy. It's 4:30 in the fucking morning, I'm tired as shit from work, and I can still see through your bullshit. So a woman's right to vote wasn't expressly written in the constitution. Big whoop. That has nothing to do with what ChaseSS was saying. Chase was pointing out that the Constitution outlines what powers the federal government has. If IT is not in the Constitution, then the government does not have the power power to do whatever IT is. Period. End of discussion. But in recent history, the checks and balances that were installed in the government have broken down and the feds think they can do whatever the fuck they want. You might want to pull that head of yours out of whomever's ass it's up (either Obama's or your own) and do some research of your own on what the Constitution is and means (or at least is supposed to mean), and also how to make a legitimate comparison.

I am kind of on the fence with this one...I think it's good he is grabbing the US auto industry by the balls and forcing them to do what should have been implemented into R & D years ago, but totally disagree with the gov't forcing any industry into some type of requirement....

Bro, did u forget that you drive a FIREHAWK?!?!? and ur quote just COMPLETELY contradicts it's self:confused:

A womans right to vote was never in the constitution either...so whats your point? The CBO cost analysis only measures paying for a public option at current levels of income. It doesnt include the administrations plan to compensate $544million of that cost with a tax increase on very top level and then resetting the tax levels to the Clinton adm. levels which would then add $740million to the income. Other ideas have included making business cover some of it which im opposed to since business will have an extremely difficult time qualifying for it. From someone such as yourself to argue about our national debt is quite disingenuous since you were the ones that voted for the people that took a 5.8 trillion dollar surplus and made it a multi trillion dollar debt and would still vote for the same people today.

?? No it wasn't even close to 5.8 trillion :jest:... please show your source lol... and he had a suplus with the help of conservative dems and repubs in the house/senate... these numbers you throw out are laughable

wow... okay. You make a complete fool of yourself. Who did I support that created deficits? hmm... I don't remember that part. And you don't either since I didn't say who I supported. Your a typical liberal who resorts to attacks on someone who brings up a logical argument. I didn't support Bush and the neo-cons. I don't support a single person who suggests spending money we don't have. There are maybe a handful of people I support in the entire government, none of them are the big players.

You mock me for supporting someone who created a deficit when I don't even support them? This is coming from someone who blindly follows a leader who signed the largest spending bill in the history of mankind without a single person being able to read it in the house and senate (didn't he say something about transparency in the white house :eyes:... doesn't sound like it now that he isn't campaigning) You represent the sheeple of America who follow without question...

$544 million + 744 million = NOT even close to the $1-2 TRILLION lol :jest: I love these facts. And the CBO's projections are NOT based on the declining amount of revenue the government will see from a decline in spending/income of the American people. Hence, the government's receivables will only get lower.

And XXgarbsXX picked up what I was saying correctly... You = FAIL. The power of the government is specifically listed in the Constitution... powers not listed to the fed are not given to the fed. This is to prevent a government assuming powers that it shouldn't have and becoming too powerful. Looks like you might have slept through history class too, along with economics.

I think it's time for a math lesson

544 million = 544,000,000

744 million = 744,000,000

544 million + 744 million = 1.288 billion = 1,288,000,000

1 trillion = 1,000 billion = 1,000,000,000,000

The proposed method of paying for said plan is too small by a factor of a thousand. No sane person could possibly justify spending a thousand times more than what they have, and then go and do it every year. That's the equivalent of me going out and buying a $200,000 house every year. To put in perspective how utterly absurd that is, I currently have $200 to my name and I'm moving back to my parents' house.

And if the true cost of the program is 2 trillion, then it would be too small by a factor of 2 thousand. That's equivalent to me buying that $200,000 house and a Lamborghini for the garage EVERY YEAR! Keep in mind I only have $200 to my name and I live with my parents. Is the absurdity of the payment plan for the healthcare program making itself clear?

This thread has gone on way too long.