OBAMA gets TOUGH
 

35.5 miles per gallon by 2016,

that is the biggest JOKE :fury:
i have yet to hear....

if that's getting tough
then he's a G.D. WIMP

a spaghetti Noodle !!

TRY :point: [[[ 50 MPG ]]]
that's getting tough!!!

Considering average gas mileages have only gone from 23.1 in 1980 to 24.7 in 1994, I think 35.5 is a pretty decent goal to set. Automakers spend 2-3 years performing R&D for new models. This gives them about 6 years to develop the technology needed to increase gas mileage by about 50%.

While I was hoping for at least 40MPG, I'm glad Obama at least pulled the trigger on an issue Bush refused to address.

I always think it's funny how every idiot we get in office (both parties) they always make grand plans that should come to fruition after they leave office, knowing full well that the next guy will more than likely not continue it. So they can never be called on it.... if it doesn't happen, it was the next guys fault.....

I think it would be cool to have a plan that you can actually finish during your term. Shoot for 1/2 the difference in 3 to 4 years.

I agree with you Cool Beans. Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama have all put a number of policies in place that won't come to fruition until after they leave. Many of the situations could have been handled within the time frame of their term depending on when the policy was issued (early in the term as opposed to late in their term).

However, I think it would be tough to press the MPG regulations much sooner than 2016 because of the R&D that needs to take place. Let's not forget that the automotive industry is getting raped at the moment. This policy will put additional pressure on the companies to develop new technologies.

My opinion is that more car companies need to move over to diesel engines. Have PR campaigns that dissolve many of the current stigmas about diesel and "how dirty it is", as current diesel engines used in cars are more efficient, more powerful and about as clean as gasoline engines.

Hell, I average 30-31MPG in my car, 35MPG if I make a round-trip drive to Truro. I also go about 75MPH on the highway and accelerate quickly, so I could be doing even better. But my car is Japanese - we'll see if the American companies can pull it off.

so long SUV... nice knowing you.

its not the weight
 

as far as SUV's are concerned

it's what they are made of...
that will make them obsolete... IMHO

since the quality of the steel is total CRAP
not to mention way to heavy :walk:
Just don't lean on your car with your ass because you'll dent it :uhuh:
President
Obama:
i think he needed to go for 50 mpg so that the auto makers
would at least have to achieve :point: 40 mpg
Since............
we all know that many worthwhile inventions for making cars run
even more efficiently have been shelved instead of implemented.

then they wont sell. The challenge is to make a car people want and gets good mileage. A honda civic wont pull my boat.
I had a toyota tercel with 150K miles on it and it got over 35mpg.

There wont be any companies left to build them anyway so it's a moot policy. This should be the last straw for the auto makers. WTF

You'll still be able to get that SUV or truck, it's just going to cost you a premium to pull the boat. It is a luxury item anyway is it not?

-spence

So because someone deems it a luxury item, I have to pay more? Who gets to decide what's a luxury and what's not. To most of us with boats, it's a necessity.

The truck is definitely a necessity.

I think all these cute little Toyota Prias' are luxury items....

not sure if you shop around at all, but dont i already pay a premium? Compare a pathfinder to a sentra, a 4 runner to a camry. tens of thousands more. supply/demand should drive what I pay, not the government. didnt you post you have an audi? sounds like a luxury item to me, a yugo will be just fine for you comrade.

Hasn't that freedom from supply/demand simply drained trillions in wealth from the US to enrich the Gulf States?

Sounds like more efficient cars would be a good thing.

-spence

im not arguing against more efficient cars. My point is that in order to be successful, they need to be the type of cars americans want to drive. I've seen hybrid yukons and other big trucks, so we can do it. Im SURE THE JAPANESE can and will do it. Will the american car compansies continue to produce duds that no one wants to buy. but they'll be fuel efficient? Success will be dtermined by fuel efficinency and market need

Jimmy, the OBOTS will never understand... To make this thing work there needs to be some incentive on the demand side, you just can't heap the responsiblility onto the producers. :wall:

Paying 25% less in fuel costs isn't an incentive?

A tax benefit provided by many states for people buying a hybrid is not an incentive?

Did the large increase in demand for hybrids coincidentally coincide exactly with a massive increase in gas prices, and then demand decrease as prices at the pump decreased?

Let's not forget that while we may not see $4 at the pump this summer, when inflation skyrockets over the next year or two and the price of oil climbs ridiculously again, $5/gallon will become a very real possibility.

Seems like you're the one that doesn't understand.

Johnny, are you saying that the government should try to bully people into buying cars they don't want because of tax incentives? If the car companies made a car I liked in a hybrid, I'd consider it. But at this point, there isn't a hybrid that suits my wants/needs.

exactly! I bought an SUV in the middle of the highest gas prices. Why? I need it! I can't lug all my fishing gear, 4 bikes, cooler, etc in a mini cooper. Sure some bought SUVs becasue the were popular, but many need them for their lifestyle. Lets make fuel efficent powerful vehicles.

now really piss me off by telling me I need to change my lifestyle...........:lasso:

JD, just out of curiousity, what do you mean when you say "when inflation skyrockets". Do you mean a galloping double digit inflation, the likes of the years following Vietnam or do you mean 5% or 6% inflation? Nevertheless, in either case, this is well above target levels of the fed.

Only asking because some are arguing that a dose of inflation may be what this country needs considering the accrued private and public debt of late.

pardon the digression, not trying to turn this into a Michael Vick...eerrr...inflation thread.

Bully people? What planet have you been living on the past 30 years?

Your lifestyle isn't a product of freedom, it's a product of industry marketing.

-spence

The some who are arguing for a dose of inflation never worked or lived during the 70's inflation years, or they would have a different perspective.

Salaries didn't keep up with inflation, loans were as high as 20%.

Never got to the point of Argentina where people moved there money daily to
pick up an extra 1/4%, but with all the spending we have going on now, it could very well happen to us.

correct me if I am wrong but I thought it was an average of all vehicles a company makes. So 35.5 MPG is pretty good if you ask me. If you average trucks that get 20 and cars that get much higher...


oh wait....I get it. No one should be allowed to drive a truck anymore? It will never happen.......Trucks make the world go round. What about the fancy secret service cars.....now way they are getting 35.5 or better!

35.5 is the average but...

"Under the plan, cars would have to get 39 mpg and trucks 30 mpg."

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...xzz0G5s5rqSN&B

Also, there's a lot of pissing and moaning when this news was released about it putting substantial stress on the automotive companies. Well...

"The White House said it was able to bring industry and consumer groups into agreement on the standard without a lot of wrangling."

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...xzz0G5sawiU6&B

I'm not saying that at all. First of all, American cars suck. Period. There is nothing on the market right now that suits my needs, is comfortable, has good performance and above average gas mileage - all while still being affordable. I asked my mechanic what type of cars he suggests to people looking to buy new, and he said "Toyota, Nissan or Honda" so people that repair the vehicles see this as well. Thus why I own a Japanese car.

I fail to see how providing a tax incentive to help the consumer more quickly recoup the added costs of a hybrid can be considered "bullying people".

With your logic, the government is bullying people to put solar panels on their homes because there is a tax rebate offered when you install solar power.

The government must also be bullying people to have children, due to the added tax write-offs for each child someone has.

Why are you answering a question with a question? Do you read posts before responding?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Is there going to be a requirement that all new homes use a certain percentage less energy by 2016? And anyways, solar panels wouldn't work on all homes.

Don't worry by the time this goes into effect, with the new gas taxes and all gas will be 10 bucks a gal and it will be a wash.

There's no requirement that you have to buy an America car. What part doesn't make sense? You were saying that a tax incentive for buying a hybrid is the government bullying the consumer into buying a hybrid car they supposedly didn't want.

This thread is about requiring certain MPG's for cars as of 2016. I made no mention of tax incentives.

But, since you brought it up, where does the money for the "tax incentives" for people who buy hybrids come from? Does the government sell cookies or magazines door to door? Or, do they set up a lemonade stand in front of the Capital building? I'd be curious to find out where all the "tax incentive" dough comes from.

If you said nothing about tax incentives, then where does any of this come from?

My whole comment was in reply to a comment about there supposedly not being any incentives for American consumers to purchase the cars that will be coming out with higher MPG and about how if the MPG is increased by 25%, then the consumer incentive will be a savings of 25% at the pump. With regards to hybrids, there are tax benefits to the incentives.

So please explain how anything in my post about incentives implies some outlandish view about the government bullying consumers to buy cars they don't want. It's not like the government is saying "For every non-American car you buy, your income will be taxed at a higher bracket."

How exactly does increasing the mandated MPG to an amount agreed upon with the automotive industry constituted bullying?

One more thing...

The estimated increased cost to provide the higher MPG is estimated at $1500/vehicle.

Doing some of my own number crunching:

Assuming those costs are passed directly onto the consumer and the taking the Federal Estimate of 15,000 miles traveled/year, the added costs will be recouped within 3-4 years of ownership with an average pump price of $3/gallon (a figure that is extremely conservative for 6 years from now).

For someone like me that drives 20,000+ miles/year, I'd be looking at a break even point of under 3 years of ownership.

All right, JD. When I used the word "bullying", it was hyperbole. Maybe not the right choice of words, but I don't claim to be as intelligent as most of the smarty pants here who always choose the right words. The tax break is an "incentive", which is a good thing. But, I don't want to be punished if I choose to buy a vehicle that doesn't qualify for the incentive. If the tax money is coming from people who don't buy the hybrids, it doesn't seem very fair. Now I don't know where this money for the tax breaks is coming from, so my point may be mute. But, if the government is getting the money for the tax breaks through taxes, everyone is paying into it. In that case, I feel bullied that the government is taking my money and giving it to someone else based on the choice they make when buying a car.

That being the case, I'm all for requiring better mileage in auto's. Anything that decreases the use of oil should bring the prices down based on supply and demand. I even think offering the tax incentives for hybrids is a great idea as long as the money isn't coming from my taxes.

Gotcha. And don't sell yourself short, you have me bashing my head against the wall sometimes trying to think of a suitable rebuttal to some of your comments. Not to mention you're one of the few to realize I'm not quite as liberal as many think.

Given that, my understanding with tax incentives (and this area is definitely not a strong source for me) is that the government isn't "paying out" so they don't have to find a source for the money. It's a matter of not as much in taxes being paid into the system, just as if a cheaper car was purchased. It helps the consumer offset the additional cost and government collects almost the same in taxes as if they purchased the cheaper car.

The government has been known to provide these incentives as a way of helping bring new technology to light and help the consumer

just curious, what else can the money be coming from other than your taxes?
Flea Market at the Smithsonian?

I'll buy Fonzie's leather jacket.

If Liberace's is there I'm sure Spence will bid on it

If people won't buy a hybrid because of the increased costs, the government would not be getting the taxes anyway. They would only be able to collect the lesser taxes paid on a cheaper car.

Once consumers don't need the added incentive to purchase hybrid (because most do come with sacrifices in performance) and massive prices at the pump are the incentive, then the government can remove the tax rebate.

In both cases - buying a hybrid or buying a cheaper car, the collected taxes to the government are similar.

Johnny, are you saing that the people who buy hybrids are going to be paying for their own tax rebate?

Essentially, yes.

People are going to pay more in taxes when they purchase a hybrid due to its increased costs over a non-hybrid, then because of the tax incentive, they'll receive a little bit more money back come Tax Day.

This is going with our previous assumption that the consumer would not buy a hybrid because of the increased Price Tag.

**I edited my post that you quoted. It should have said "The government would *not* be getting the taxes anyway."

No, but we're talking about Julia Child's copper pots and pans I'd be all over it :lama:

And FB, it's "moot".

-spence