Bush: Give me authority to set fuel standards

[zendari]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: zendari
If automakers are making heavier cars, its because the American people want to buy them.

Once again, you missed the entire point of the post - regulating corporate MPG by vehicle weight gives producers the incentive to make heavier cars to escape MPG limits, REGARDLESS of consumer demand...even if fuel prices go up which would reduce that demand.

FS

Which is irrelevant unless there is ample consumer demand in the first place. These standards are foolish to begin with.

Gotta love liberals and their Big Brother government ideals, because Americans cant decide what vehicles to buy.

Gee, back in the 1960's many people wanted to buy cars with seat belts. Only the "free market" somehow decided it should be a 1,000 dollar option (and thats in the 1960's).
So the government mandated seat belts. And....you guessed it, when actually implemented it cost the manufacturers about 50 dollars.
So shut up about the "free market"
The "free market" actually demands you make a product shoddy at times, or fight innovation, or NOT offer what the public wants.

Given how many people don't wear seat belts, I wonder where you get the idea that's what the public wants.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The oil companies are making 9 cents profit per gallon.

The federal government alone makes double that, not counting state tax.

Who's the real big enemy here?

Exxon Mobil made $57 billion profit in the first quarter alone. Where do you get 9 cents profit per gallon from?

And even if the real enemy is government then I would suggest to you that the government has been in republican control for some time now. So, perhaps you are right on that point.

It would appear that the bush republicans are America's true enemies.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BDawg
He's done so well with health care, Iraq, Katrina, etc., let's put him solely over gas!

Just the thought of putting him in charge of setting fuel standards gives me gas.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: BDawg


He's done so well with health care, Iraq, Katrina, etc., let's put him solely over gas!

Then light a match.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

Originally posted by: BDawg


He's done so well with health care, Iraq, Katrina, etc., let's put him solely over gas!

Then light a match.

:thumbsup:

I'll be happy to flick my Bic!

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: BDawg
Link

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday said he wants to raise fuel-efficiency standards on automobiles, as members of both parties jockeyed for political position on the issue of rising gas prices.

Bush called on Congress to give him the authority to set the standards for passenger cars sold in the United States as a means of reducing the nation's demand for gasoline.

He's done so well with health care, Iraq, Katrina, etc., let's put him solely over gas!

ya, it's easy. Lossen environmental laws. It's simple. You can get better fuel econmy, at a price.

Want to fix the supply issues, INCREASE the damned taxes on oil.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: BDawg
Link

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday said he wants to raise fuel-efficiency standards on automobiles, as members of both parties jockeyed for political position on the issue of rising gas prices.

Bush called on Congress to give him the authority to set the standards for passenger cars sold in the United States as a means of reducing the nation's demand for gasoline.

He's done so well with health care, Iraq, Katrina, etc., let's put him solely over gas!

ya, it's easy. Lossen environmental laws. It's simple. You can get better fuel econmy, at a price.

Want to fix the supply issues, INCREASE the damned taxes on oil.

Back during the 70s energy crisis the move to economy cars was in full swing. American dependency on foreign oil waned to the point where gas was "cheap" again by today's standards.

Now ask yourselves, why on Earth would anyone completely ignore conservation and fuel standards and allow America to get hooked on foreign oil again?

Clue: It happened again FIRST during the Reagan/bush administrations and now again during bush boy's total collapse of a supposed government. What could be their motive?

Every time Clinton brought CAFE standards the republicans acted like vampires being exposed to sunlight. What possibly could be their motive? Imagine where America would be today if the conservation initiatives of the 70's had been implemented permanently instead of nonsense like bush boy's tax write off for Hummer 2's.

Hmm...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: zendari
If automakers are making heavier cars, its because the American people want to buy them.

Once again, you missed the entire point of the post - regulating corporate MPG by vehicle weight gives producers the incentive to make heavier cars to escape MPG limits, REGARDLESS of consumer demand...even if fuel prices go up which would reduce that demand.

FS

Which is irrelevant unless there is ample consumer demand in the first place. These standards are foolish to begin with.

Gotta love liberals and their Big Brother government ideals, because Americans cant decide what vehicles to buy.

Gee, back in the 1960's many people wanted to buy cars with seat belts. Only the "free market" somehow decided it should be a 1,000 dollar option (and thats in the 1960's).
So the government mandated seat belts. And....you guessed it, when actually implemented it cost the manufacturers about 50 dollars.
So shut up about the "free market"
The "free market" actually demands you make a product shoddy at times, or fight innovation, or NOT offer what the public wants.

Given how many people don't wear seat belts, I wonder where you get the idea that's what the public wants.

I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of drivers in the US wear their seatbelts. I have met ONE person who doesn't wear one when he gets in a car, everyone else does. Do you have any facts to suggest that's not the case?

techs' point is well made, the government is, after all, simply an extension of the people. And the free market, while certainly a good source of product change, is not perfect. The big problem is that money is king, if it's difficult to express a benefit in monetary terms, you won't see a business doing it. And contrary to semi-popular belief, not everything can be expressed in dollars.

Take fuel economy...American companies make most of their money now selling high profit, low fuel-economy vehicles. They have invested a lot of time and money into developing huge trucks for the many suburban commuter, and it's one of the few areas American companies are considered superior to Japanese or German car companies. Compared with the slower rise of the SUV, gas prices are shooting up much, MUCH more quickly. Auto makers simply can't turn on a dime like that, and even if they could, it would mean lower profits (SUVs and trucks have very high profit margins) and more competition in areas American makers are already considered inept. But people are leaning away from large vehicles...the free market wins, right? Except the marketing folks at GM and Ford are good at telling people what they want, SUVs and trucks are tied to how many and rustic you are, only sissy, latte drinkers drive around town in a Toyota. Sure, it doesn't work on everybody, but American auto-makers are putting significant effort into selling you a truck, SUV or large vehicle of some kind, NOT the perfect consumer car.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: zendari
If automakers are making heavier cars, its because the American people want to buy them.

Once again, you missed the entire point of the post - regulating corporate MPG by vehicle weight gives producers the incentive to make heavier cars to escape MPG limits, REGARDLESS of consumer demand...even if fuel prices go up which would reduce that demand.

FS

Which is irrelevant unless there is ample consumer demand in the first place. These standards are foolish to begin with.

Gotta love liberals and their Big Brother government ideals, because Americans cant decide what vehicles to buy.

You have the nerve to talk about "liberals" and their "Big Brother" government ideals while your so-called "conservative" idol is listening in on your phone conversations, viewing your e-mails, following your surfing habits, and sending people off to secret prisons around the world???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're too damn funny for words.

Looks to me like you have no problem with Big Brother either.

Dave Barry has a good point on this topic. He wrote an article ragging on Republicans about how much they claim to hate big government, and yet at every turn they are making it even bigger. He gave the Democrats a pass, he said, because although they love big government just as much as the Republicans (although in a different way), you don't hear THEM claiming they hate it, they are open about their love for big government. Bad ideas are still bad ideas, but being a hypocrit about it makes it worse.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The oil companies are making 9 cents profit per gallon.

The federal government alone makes double that, not counting state tax.

Who's the real big enemy here?

profit. n: The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met.

What do you think the federal government DOES with tax money, buy a new hot tub for the White House? If we're counting raw income, the oil companies are WAY ahead of the game, your inability to understand the English language not-withstanding.

 

[Jeff7]

Anything else Bush wants authority over?

More power, more power!! More!!!!


"Meesa propose, dat da Senate, give immediately, emergency powers to da Supreme Chancellah!

I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of drivers in the US wear their seatbelts. I have met ONE person who doesn't wear one when he gets in a car, everyone else does. Do you have any facts to suggest that's not the case?

I haven't known many people in my life, but I have probably known at least 10 people who didn't wear seatbelts. They were either "uncomfortable" or "inconvenient." I imagine that smashing your head on the windshield would be both very inconvenient and uncomfortable.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Anything else Bush wants authority over?

More power, more power!! More!!!!


"Meesa propose, dat da Senate, give immediately, emergency powers to da Supreme Chancellah!

I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of drivers in the US wear their seatbelts. I have met ONE person who doesn't wear one when he gets in a car, everyone else does. Do you have any facts to suggest that's not the case?

I haven't known many people in my life, but I have probably known at least 10 people who didn't wear seatbelts. They were either "uncomfortable" or "inconvenient." I imagine that smashing your head on the windshield would be both very inconvenient and uncomfortable.

Wow, that's an impressivly large number. I always find it amazing, what do they think is going to happen when they get in an accident? I find it difficult to imagine they think they won't get in an accident bad enough, as even relativly minor accidents can screw things up if you aren't wearing a belt. How stupid do you have to be?

And while I think seat-belts should be required in cars, WEARING them should be optional. The government isn't your nanny, if you want to smash your brains (assuming you have any) all over your windshield, go right ahead, natural selection at its best.

 

[randym431]

Bush: Give me authority to set fuel standards

Oh P L E A S E... This was brought up by the Democrats some time ago, and guess who rejected it.....The Republican controlled congress.

Do YOU really still believe these guys are on YOUR side????
This has NOTHING to do with gas or concern for YOU. Its whind-up for 2006 "BS-America" campaign.
WAKE UP AMERICA - Knock knock - Anyone home?
Gesh! Dont make me :laugh:

 

[Jeff7]

I find it amazing too, but it kind of surprised me that anyone out there doesn't buckle up.

And while I think seat-belts should be required in cars, WEARING them should be optional. The government isn't your nanny, if you want to smash your brains (assuming you have any) all over your windshield, go right ahead, natural selection at its best.

I guess it's the government's way of profiting off of stupidity, via fines for such an offense. Or rather, one of their ways of doing so....
Other concerns - people without seatbelts in the backseat can injure people in the front seat. But that should be the concern of the person in the front.
"Buckle up or the car isn't going anywhere."

Other concern though - head-on collision. Unrestrained driver in other car smashes through their windshield, then through your windshield. You've basically got a heavy glass-encrusted projectile headed at your face. I guess that's part of why they might try to enforce this sort of thing.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: zendari
If automakers are making heavier cars, its because the American people want to buy them.

Once again, you missed the entire point of the post - regulating corporate MPG by vehicle weight gives producers the incentive to make heavier cars to escape MPG limits, REGARDLESS of consumer demand...even if fuel prices go up which would reduce that demand.

FS

For example, the rules set a target for the Hummer H3 of 24.16 mpg by the 2011 model year. That's 4 mpg more than the EPA estimate of the H3's current fuel economy. Such an improvement likely would require changes in the H3's powertrain, aerodynamics and weight.

But if Hummer were to add two inches of track width and four inches of wheelbase to the H3, the vehicle's fuel economy target would drop by about 1 mpg.

Even if they make the h3 bigger, they will still be required to increase its fuel effeciency.

linkage

And lets not forget it was CAFE that gave us the SUV in the first place.

 

[compuwiz1]

Bush will soon be gone.
Lesson learned: Never, ever let a f@cking Chimpanzee run a country, ever again.
There is a country, where Monkee brains are an appetizer. They put a live Monkee in a head stockade, then let the patrons whack it over the head with hammers, finally picking out the meat. This is much like eating crab, deshelling them, etc. :shocked:

Of course I would not wish something so draconian on the president of the USA...so can we at least impeach the moron?

 

[Moonbeam]

The collective American moron voter is getting what he and she deserves. Our elected representatives really do represent us.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: BDawg
Link

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday said he wants to raise fuel-efficiency standards on automobiles, as members of both parties jockeyed for political position on the issue of rising gas prices.

Bush called on Congress to give him the authority to set the standards for passenger cars sold in the United States as a means of reducing the nation's demand for gasoline.

He's done so well with health care, Iraq, Katrina, etc., let's put him solely over gas!

ya, it's easy. Lossen environmental laws. It's simple. You can get better fuel econmy, at a price.

Want to fix the supply issues, INCREASE the damned taxes on oil.

Do you measn tax the Oil Profits or let the Oil Companies continue to rake it record profits but rax the consumer making them pay more for gas?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Fuel efficiency standards will take 3-5 years to impliment.

Then there is another 5-7 years for that impact to actually be felt in terms of the newer vehicles that are required to meet such standards.

So anything that happens now will have a final measurable impact in the 5-10 years mark.

Which is why all of us who have been bitching an moaning about retarded SUVs getting 8MPG driving to work with one person in them....

were right!

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The oil companies are making 9 cents profit per gallon.

The federal government alone makes double that, not counting state tax.

Who's the real big enemy here?

Exxon Mobil made $57 billion profit in the first quarter alone. Where do you get 9 cents profit per gallon from?

And even if the real enemy is government then I would suggest to you that the government has been in republican control for some time now. So, perhaps you are right on that point.

It would appear that the bush republicans are America's true enemies.

Maybe they are, I'm not denying that possibility. However I don't think electing a democrat will help much in terms of lower taxes.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The oil companies are making 9 cents profit per gallon.

The federal government alone makes double that, not counting state tax.

Who's the real big enemy here?

profit. n: The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met.

What do you think the federal government DOES with tax money, buy a new hot tub for the White House? If we're counting raw income, the oil companies are WAY ahead of the game, your inability to understand the English language not-withstanding.

They throw it into the "pot" and congress spends it however the hell they want.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: zendari
If automakers are making heavier cars, its because the American people want to buy them.

Once again, you missed the entire point of the post - regulating corporate MPG by vehicle weight gives producers the incentive to make heavier cars to escape MPG limits, REGARDLESS of consumer demand...even if fuel prices go up which would reduce that demand.

FS

Which is irrelevant unless there is ample consumer demand in the first place. These standards are foolish to begin with.

Gotta love liberals and their Big Brother government ideals, because Americans cant decide what vehicles to buy.

Gee, back in the 1960's many people wanted to buy cars with seat belts. Only the "free market" somehow decided it should be a 1,000 dollar option (and thats in the 1960's).
So the government mandated seat belts. And....you guessed it, when actually implemented it cost the manufacturers about 50 dollars.
So shut up about the "free market"
The "free market" actually demands you make a product shoddy at times, or fight innovation, or NOT offer what the public wants.

Given how many people don't wear seat belts, I wonder where you get the idea that's what the public wants.

I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of drivers in the US wear their seatbelts. I have met ONE person who doesn't wear one when he gets in a car, everyone else does. Do you have any facts to suggest that's not the case?

techs' point is well made, the government is, after all, simply an extension of the people. And the free market, while certainly a good source of product change, is not perfect. The big problem is that money is king, if it's difficult to express a benefit in monetary terms, you won't see a business doing it. And contrary to semi-popular belief, not everything can be expressed in dollars.

Take fuel economy...American companies make most of their money now selling high profit, low fuel-economy vehicles. They have invested a lot of time and money into developing huge trucks for the many suburban commuter, and it's one of the few areas American companies are considered superior to Japanese or German car companies. Compared with the slower rise of the SUV, gas prices are shooting up much, MUCH more quickly. Auto makers simply can't turn on a dime like that, and even if they could, it would mean lower profits (SUVs and trucks have very high profit margins) and more competition in areas American makers are already considered inept. But people are leaning away from large vehicles...the free market wins, right? Except the marketing folks at GM and Ford are good at telling people what they want, SUVs and trucks are tied to how many and rustic you are, only sissy, latte drinkers drive around town in a Toyota. Sure, it doesn't work on everybody, but American auto-makers are putting significant effort into selling you a truck, SUV or large vehicle of some kind, NOT the perfect consumer car.

Who are you to define the perfect consumer car? People buy what they want to buy, and that's the beauty of our country.

As for seat belts: Text

You're looking at 22% not wearing seat belt even in these few "primary enforcement" states, which i assume means you can be pulled over solely for not wearing one.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: zendari
If automakers are making heavier cars, its because the American people want to buy them.

Once again, you missed the entire point of the post - regulating corporate MPG by vehicle weight gives producers the incentive to make heavier cars to escape MPG limits, REGARDLESS of consumer demand...even if fuel prices go up which would reduce that demand.

FS

Which is irrelevant unless there is ample consumer demand in the first place. These standards are foolish to begin with.

Gotta love liberals and their Big Brother government ideals, because Americans cant decide what vehicles to buy.

Gee, back in the 1960's many people wanted to buy cars with seat belts. Only the "free market" somehow decided it should be a 1,000 dollar option (and thats in the 1960's).
So the government mandated seat belts. And....you guessed it, when actually implemented it cost the manufacturers about 50 dollars.
So shut up about the "free market"
The "free market" actually demands you make a product shoddy at times, or fight innovation, or NOT offer what the public wants.

Given how many people don't wear seat belts, I wonder where you get the idea that's what the public wants.

I don't know the figure but a significant portion of the public wants cars to have seat belts.
In the 1960's car companies funded studies that showed that seat belts would kill you because it was 'safer' to be thrown out of a car in an accident and seat belts held you in. These 'studies' were b.s. Even so, over a third of the public at the time said they would pay for seat belts if they were a 200 dollar option!
And the car makers, in COLLUSION, didn't offer them. And claimed it would cost the manufacturers 1,000 dollars a car to put in lap only seat belts.
In this particular case the supplier worked to trick the public in an attempt to manipulate demand. Then they lied about the cost. Then they colluded with the other suppliers not to offer them.
So the free market failed.
How many peoples lives could have been saved? Tens or hundreds of thousands if the car makers had met demand for 200 dollar seat belts.
Remember the movie Tucker? What Tucker said in the movie was true in the 1960's. The big four automakers should have been indicted for manslaughter.

 

[CaptnKirk]

The only authority I'm willing to give him is the authority to consume pretzels.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: zendari
If automakers are making heavier cars, its because the American people want to buy them.

Once again, you missed the entire point of the post - regulating corporate MPG by vehicle weight gives producers the incentive to make heavier cars to escape MPG limits, REGARDLESS of consumer demand...even if fuel prices go up which would reduce that demand.

FS

Which is irrelevant unless there is ample consumer demand in the first place. These standards are foolish to begin with.

Gotta love liberals and their Big Brother government ideals, because Americans cant decide what vehicles to buy.

Gee, back in the 1960's many people wanted to buy cars with seat belts. Only the "free market" somehow decided it should be a 1,000 dollar option (and thats in the 1960's).
So the government mandated seat belts. And....you guessed it, when actually implemented it cost the manufacturers about 50 dollars.
So shut up about the "free market"
The "free market" actually demands you make a product shoddy at times, or fight innovation, or NOT offer what the public wants.

Given how many people don't wear seat belts, I wonder where you get the idea that's what the public wants.

I don't know the figure but a significant portion of the public wants cars to have seat belts.
In the 1960's car companies funded studies that showed that seat belts would kill you because it was 'safer' to be thrown out of a car in an accident and seat belts held you in. These 'studies' were b.s. Even so, over a third of the public at the time said they would pay for seat belts if they were a 200 dollar option!
And the car makers, in COLLUSION, didn't offer them. And claimed it would cost the manufacturers 1,000 dollars a car to put in lap only seat belts.
In this particular case the supplier worked to trick the public in an attempt to manipulate demand. Then they lied about the cost. Then they colluded with the other suppliers not to offer them.
So the free market failed.
How many peoples lives could have been saved? Tens or hundreds of thousands if the car makers had met demand for 200 dollar seat belts.
Remember the movie Tucker? What Tucker said in the movie was true in the 1960's. The big four automakers should have been indicted for manslaughter.

Biased movie.