Commander in Thief

[Ivan]

Now that we have no balance of powers in the federal government, Our Commander in Theif, Shiek Barrak Insane Hobama has found it appropriate to sign into law stricter mileage requirements by 2010. This doesnt bug me nearly as much as the socalled pork they put through with that law. Apparently, we will have a mileage tax as well as a limit on horsepower. I am not sure of the specifics yet, but my wife will have researched it by this evening.

Mileage tax will hurt me severely. I travel 100+ miles a day to work and back, and barely scratch out a living as it is. Limiting horsepower in vehicles is just insane. Whats wrong with having the fastest car you can afford. Especially out here in the great plains where people arent so packed together that 85 people smell it when you fart? The sky is blue here, and there isnt enough exhaust to cause a dent. Let the greenies live in their own communes of filth and let the rest of us be.

Kiss your freedom goodbye and get used to hearing "Your papers, please."

[oseaghdha]

Don't blame me, I voted for the grumpy old guy.

[DiverRay]

Ahh,
But what you may NOT realize is that the law is ALREADY in place in California, and six other states. The one he signed actually REPLACES the California "only" cars, and is great as far as I am concerned. Most of the Auto Maker C.E.O.'s who have been trying to kill ANY new mileage bill are behind this. They now make ONE car, not two for the US market.
Yes, the newer cars WILL cost about $600 each more now that before the bill, but they were going to go up about $800 each anyway! I'm happy with it, as I've had to put up with PITA cars for years.....

[Ivan]

From what I have been reading, the Presidente himself said $1300 cost increase on the average car. Auto industry analyists are saying closed to $5000. Hobama says that with the new higher gas prices (meaning that they WILL go up, and some say double last years highs) the cost should be recovered in three years.

You may be happy with Califorgotya's mileage regs, but you are paying a high price for it. Apparently not high enough either as the state cant seem to get out of the red, to the tune of 15.4 billion. California is infamous for making laws that have no way to pay for them or are actually possible. Remember the "grey outs"? Saying that California does it tells the rest of the world its not a good idea, and probably down right bad. Not everyone lives in Socal or the eastern seaboard. There is a world apart from the congested cesspits lawmakers and greenies limit their world view to. I have been to both populus concentrations, and was far from impressed. I wouldn't ever live there, and if that's the only world the greenies ever see, then its no wonder their consensus is that the world is ending. Their shortsightedness should not effect others who have the foresight to spread out a bit.

They tell automakers to get better mileage, then dilute the fuel with alcohol. No one has thought through this. The driving force behind it is a small concentrated group of population who can't see past their own smog.

FWIW I voted for McCain, but only once. A guy who spent time in Hanoi Hilton and declined release because others had been there longer definately possesses the ability to think of someone other than himself. Well, that and Palin is HAWT!

[EricHa]

Ahh,
But what you may NOT realize is that the law is ALREADY in place in California, and six other states. The one he signed actually REPLACES the California "only" cars, and is great as far as I am concerned. Most of the Auto Maker C.E.O.'s who have been trying to kill ANY new mileage bill are behind this. They now make ONE car, not two for the US market.
Yes, the newer cars WILL cost about $600 each more now that before the bill, but they were going to go up about $800 each anyway! I'm happy with it, as I've had to put up with PITA cars for years.....

Yes, and what a role model California is for the nation! Actually the cost was reported to be $1300 per vehicle, and that was from the people who support the bill so the number will probably be higher. Here's a novel idea, let the people decide what kind of car they own. If they want to pay more more fuel, so be it. If the auto companies can't compete, let 'em fail. That WAS the American way. Now it's corporate welfare for the banks and largest companies. Just remember that when you're on welfare, your dependent on the government, and that's just the way they want it.

[xschop]

Cantafordya

Cali has been bankrupt for a few years now. One of my sisters (Last family member there) is packing as we speak to come back to Oklahoma. 3 years ago my oldest sister sold her home there, moved back with her entire family and paid cash for 2 homes here before the market crashed. Govner Arnie has all the state workers on minimum wage (last I heard) and the state can't borrow money for their physcal responibilities.....I don't feel sorry for a state that puts thousands of it's workers on unemployment because a small minnow is being killed in the irrigation pumps.....redesign the pump, fools.

[oseaghdha]

The "O!"-mobile!



You could probably torpedo one of these on an 11 and walk away.

[mn2346]

I know this must be bad idea....but I can't help myself...

Have you guys ever wondered why is it that your "big three" are in the state they are now...every part of the planet is moving to this direction. Your industry has no choice but to take this as the last warning and start to innovate.

Fiat is taking over...what does that tell you...

If I recall the SUV's had somekind of tax break from the goverment for reason or another, that does not sound like fair competition to me. They were basically encouraged to make the tanks you drive now.

Now I'm not a member of the green party here with my BMW with V12 engine (300HP) but I don't complain either. Somehow since our goverment decided to tax our new cars based on their CO emissions our average consumption for new cars has dropped ~20% and the sticker prices have also been dropped!
Porsche prices went up, BMW prices went down with efficient dynamic technology.

[DiverRay]

Yes, and what a role model California is for the nation! Actually the cost was reported to be $1300 per vehicle,

That is true, the TOTAL cost is 1,300, but the ADDED cost over what is already on the books is about 600 to 800.
As far as the state of my State, I am a third generation native here, and after living in the South while in the Army, I STILL like it here. No, I didn't vote for the winners all the time, nor have I voted for some of the losers. Our biggest problems are just a subset of what the country is probably going to see. Politicians who cannot seem to understand that sometimes you need to CUT spending at HOME! This relates to the staff size, junkets, etc. that they DON'T want to cut.
Granted, Obama may not be perfect, but from MY personal perspective he SHOULD be able to do a better job that the last person we suffered through. Of course, there is STILL the LEGISLATORS in the mix.....

[Ivan]

Have you guys ever wondered why is it that your "big three" are in the state they are now...every part of the planet is moving to this direction. Your industry has no choice but to take this as the last warning and start to innovate.

Fiat is taking over...what does that tell you...

If I recall the SUV's had somekind of tax break from the goverment for reason or another, that does not sound like fair competition to me. They were basically encouraged to make the tanks you drive now.

Now I'm not a member of the green party here with my BMW with V12 engine (300HP) but I don't complain either. Somehow since our goverment decided to tax our new cars based on their CO emissions our average consumption for new cars has dropped ~20% and the sticker prices have also been dropped!
Porsche prices went up, BMW prices went down with efficient dynamic technology.

You refer to our SUVs as tanks. I call my Yukon a bus. If you think of people per miles per gallons, SUVs are FAR more efficient than a two seat econo box. I can haul 8 people (and I do, with six kids) all the luggage and hairspray that goes along with them and run both AC fans while pulling 21 MPG. Two cars loaded down with that might pull 28-30. So while not burning twice the fuel that one SUV does, it would be close. The typical thought that here in america we drive the big SUV to get icecream with our girlfriend is simply not true. If we can save fuel, we will. We don't burn it just because we can.

[ZombieRob]

while i agree with the idea the an suv CAN be more fuel efficient than some of the econoboxes out there the problem lies in that the majority of people who drive suv's do so with only one or two people in them while maintainining room for seven seems like a big waste of space. if one uses their suv loaded up with all the people it's designed to hold and only drives on the interstate where their horsepower will be useful than yes an suv is the more practical of the vehicle. if you want horsepower and hauling, and only drive with one or two people in the vehicle than get a pickup and a seperate commuter car for daily driving. or a motorcycle.

[ZombieRob]

btw ivan i'm not saying this specifically about you. you seem to use your suv for what it was intended for. more for all the people who drive a big exspensive suv because they can afford it or because it looks cool, i.e. hummer. and not to carry people. fwiw i am a former jeep grand cherokee owner. 19 mpg average.

[Ivan]

While there are those that do drive Hummers for the looks, by far and large those types of vehicles are for a purpose. Especially out here in the midwest, where people won't waste money on impractical things. We bought the cheapest vehicle that would haul my family. Then I bought the XS to ride to work, since running the Yukon around town was draining the bank account faster than the Shiek could have done himself. On nice days I ride my 28mpg XS and my wife takes the 24 mpg Neon.

They stereotype of the greedy American who drives a gas guzzling suv with smoke spewing out the tail pipe leaving a wake of dead spotted owls and expired baby seals is preposterous. Well, unless you are thinking of Al Gore and his ultra efficient fleet of Escalades and residence that takes more electricity than an entire town. Or our El Presidente that zooms around at tree top levels in a friggen 747 for a photo op.

[ZombieRob]

once again i agree that as long as it's actually being used for the purpose it was intended for there's no problem. and i do think that a tax for the less efficient vehicles doesn't make a whole lot of sense. i think that the main reason the tax was put in place was to make it so fewer people buy less efficient vehicles thereby encouraging the auto manufacturers to create more fuel efficient vehicles through supply and demand. living in the chicago area i see too many people in escalades, yukons, suburbans, and other large, seven passenger suv's with only the driver in them. that is the main complaint i am putting out there right now.

[Toolmaker Tim]

SUV's

Here are a couple of thoughts; If you are 5' 6" a small car is great, if you are 6'5' a small fuel efficent car is a torture chamber on wheels. If you live in the Midwest, especially near the Great Lakes, four wheel drive is more than a good idea. If people on the Left Coast had to deal with the occasional 6-12 inches of snow we get you would think differently. All regions of this country are different and the driving needs follow suit. Personally the idea of pulling out into 65-85 MPH traffic with a four cylinder car while towing even a small boat and trailer is a way to get run over.