There is hope for America Yet!
39 mpg will help. Also we need everyone to be flexible because the oil price are unpredictable and everyone needs to continue to adapt if this happens without turning it a fight between parties.
- if this happens can the auto companies retool quick enough to met any changes like this? like from 39 mpg to say 45 mpg quickly?
Posted by: Stephen | May 19, 2009, 9:16 pm 9:16 pm
Did the execs have a choice? Afterall, if your boss tells you to applaud, you applaud.
Why not 55 mpg? 65 mpg? 100 mpg?
Afterall, how long could it possible take to design, construct tooling, re-configure Tier I and Tier II plants, qualify suppliers, and manufacture and launch (preferably profitable) product?
If The One and his thugs will it, it will be done…
/sarc.
tjp612:”Why not 55 mpg? 65 mpg? 100 mpg?”
The goal was determined based on an actual analysis of currently available technology and the economic impact of the requirement. The National Academy of Science study commissioned by Congress was completed in 2001 (as requested in PL 106-346). Based on a review of available technology, it found a 40% increase in efficiency was feasible in a lifecycle cost neutral manner with existing technology.
The new number is based on extensive review and study of the technology available to meet it.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 20, 2009, 12:06 am 12:06 am
I’m sure the GM execs who sold off 200,000 shares last week had no idea what they were doing…
*****************************************************
Could it have had something to do with GM shares dropping 35% in April, rather than in anticipation of the enviromental modifications as you so clearly suggested?
Posted by: kim | May 20, 2009, 12:19 am 12:19 am
I’m sure the GM execs who sold off 200,000 shares last week had no idea what they were doing…Posted by: Fascist Hyena
they were doing exactly what they’ve been doing for the last 30 years, looking out for themselves and letting their company rot…..
Posted by: Dr. J | May 20, 2009, 1:20 am 1:20 am
I’m suspicious.
Obama cut the number of years Congress had given them to meet CAFE standards by 4.
He told them they really will have to live up to the standards California wanted to set.
Even Toyota isn’t sure they can meet the truck standards.
Obama can’t guarantee another state won’t try to increase the standards at any time in the near future, and he’s already indicated he’s willing to consider letting them.
None of that seems flying-in-for-a-photo-op worthy. None of that is applause worthy, even if they do know their fate. It isn’t the fate they wanted, and they got nothing out of it.
So why would they fly in (isn’t there a global warming emergency) to stand in the Rose Garden for this announcement? I can see accepting it. I don’t understand celebrating it.
Posted by: MayBee | May 20, 2009, 1:53 am 1:53 am
Auto companies are supportive?
Yeah, sure- in the same way the Godfather was supported. If they don’t support Obama, they get to sleep with the fishes.
Posted by: drjohn | May 20, 2009, 7:35 am 7:35 am
Posted by: Dr. J | May 20, 2009 1:20:49 AM
Why is it all of you think companies exist to provide you a living?
Companies exist to make money.
Posted by: drjohn | May 20, 2009, 7:36 am 7:36 am
“The new number is based on extensive review and study of the technology available to meet it.
Posted by: jhw539
—————————
The science is settled. Move on.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 20, 2009, 8:00 am 8:00 am
I read in the paper that the estimated cost to auto manufacturers to raise the fuel efficiency standard to 31 mpg by 2015 would cost the auto industry 47 Billion dollars in order to meet the original 2020 deadline.
Given that 2 US Auto manufacturers are going into bankruptcy court, is this a sensible pressure to put on the auto industry at this time? If I was in the UAW, I’d be worried if not a little ticked off.
A bad assumption is that a 35mpg car is going to be sooo profitable, affordable, and in demand, the primary forces of a market. It’s another bad assumption that the Government can manage it. I fail to understand the faith people have in government controlling the markets that Americans depend on. I fear the end of US auto manufacturing may be near, or at the least have only 1 standing.
Posted by: KR | May 20, 2009, 8:46 am 8:46 am
This is only a rumor.. maybe Jake could verify.. the White House has installed an ‘Applaud’ sign. I think it also says Stand, Cheer, Laugh.. depending upon the situation.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 20, 2009, 9:23 am 9:23 am
It is about time the government made some demands on the automakers. Twenty five years ago when we had the gas lines, the government gave a mandate to the automakers to make smaller cars to conserve on gas and save money. Instead, they made the bigger SUV’s and the government did nothing. Now, we have someone who is going to see that it gets done. It will be better for gas usage, economy and environment. I laugh at the people who are complaining about government involvement but when things go wrong, who is the first person they blame….the government. You can’t have it both ways….for years people have wanted better mileage out of their cars and finally it will happen.
Posted by: talmag | May 20, 2009, 10:48 am 10:48 am
We would be better served by regulating auto emissions in China.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 20, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am
To donget81onmenow: After all the publicity about President Obama going to Notre Dame for a speech mostly hyped by the newsmedia, when he arrived, he was overwhelmingly received. Did you listen to the priest who introduced him? He gave a great speech about listening and hearing both sides of everything. President Obama does not need an applause sign…this reception was genuine and even though they were on different sides of the issue, they respected each other. Actualy, it has been said that Obama does not like people who always agree with him…he prefers the people who give him the opposite view so he can hear all sides of the issues. A novelty in any administration especially after the “my way or the highway” administration we just got out of.
Posted by: talmag | May 20, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
Dance when Obama says dance, or he destroy you. At least that is what he told Chrysler investors who dared disagree with his theft of their investment.
Now he is using tax dollars, via a dummy corp, (read the reuters article) to pay off GM debt and other investors. Then he will use more tax dollars to buy the company outright.
Then he will extend them a line of Gov’t credit.
Then he will forgive all the billions in bailout cash they already have received.
THEN HE WILL GIVE GM TO HIS UNION CAMPAIGN SUPPORTERS. Not the workers, the union management.
The same management that plans to send the autoworker jobs to China.
BEND OVER TAXPAYERS. YOU JUST BOUGHT OBAMA ROUGHLY 100 BILLION IN CAMPAIGN SUPPORT, and all you got was a bunch of autoworkers who lose their jobs anyway.
Posted by: MNM | May 20, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am
“You can’t have it both ways….for years people have wanted better mileage out of their cars and finally it will happen.”
You mean people cannot buy cars with good gas mileage now?? Thank goodness Obama came along! I’ve been wanting to drive a 50 mpg golf cart to work for ages! Yay for socialism! Give me a break. You’re telling me what I should be driving?? Let me come into your life and tell you how you should live it because I THINK YOU SHOULD.
I get sick and tired of people telling me what I should drive and what I should think. If I could give you the finger in text, I would.
Posted by: KR | May 20, 2009, 11:16 am 11:16 am
I hope the college kids that supported Obama enjoy the freedom they have left.
Pretty soon their new daddy will tell them how much money they can earn, what car to drive, punish them with taxes on just about everything,tell them what doctor to go to, how to set their thermostats.
Plus Obama has given them his debt to pay off.
Wait until they wake up and see what BO has done to their future.
Posted by: max | May 20, 2009, 1:20 pm 1:20 pm
Obama’s tin can eco-friendly cars.
Can we just take it to the dump and recycle it when it breaks down?
Maybe we’ll get $100 back.
I won’t buy any of Obama’s cars.
Posted by: tyler | May 20, 2009, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
So we buy Obama’s death traps.
Then we have a minor collision that totally destroys the car and us.
Then we go to the doctor that Obama chooses for us–to see if our new medical plan decides we are worth saving.
Nice racket Obama has going.
Posted by: ross | May 20, 2009, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm
talmag..
i was joking haha..
also,
POTUS would really like me, i pretty much disagree with all that he stands for.. i’ll even volunteer to disagree with him, if we would ask..
I’m not surprised that safety isn’t a concern to Obama.
He has a pre-9/11 mindset.
And has shown he is not willing to do everything in his power to protect Americans (interrogations).
He is willing to cut defense spending
and is soft on illegals/drug dealers.
Why not push his little aluminum cars when money is more of a concern than safety?
Posted by: millie | May 20, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
The auto execs now have the govenment’s (read that Democrats’) hands so firmly up their keisters that Obama can move their hands and mouths at will.
Why don’t all of you that want to complain about Obama get upset with the real cause of the auto industries problems. $4.00 a gallon gas or is your memory so short that you don’t remember what happend with the gas prices last year. Perhaps you think screw the working man you’ve got yours. But when the honest joe goes to work and has to put a 3rd of his check into the gas tank it makes me sick. Remember you’ve had clowns and actors since Reagan in the White House. Obamas election is long over due.
Posted by: bill | May 20, 2009, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm
Steven says:There is hope for America Yet!
39 mpg will help. Also we need everyone to be flexible because the oil price are unpredictable and everyone needs to continue to adapt if this happens without turning it a fight between parties.
- if this happens can the auto companies retool quick enough to met any changes like this? like from 39 mpg to say 45 mpg quickly?—————why would it be up to the auto companies to retool, why aren’t we drilling more in the US, & offshore, developing shale, nuclear? This is all about control of the populace it has nothing to do with the issues. And they are willing to kill more Americans by sticking them in little cars. And to those of you that say EVERYBODY should be in a little car..how do we truck goods to market? How do we get around in snow and ice? How do we haul farm equipment, boats and trailers?
There is hope for America Yet!
39 mpg will help. Also we need everyone to be flexible because the oil price are unpredictable and everyone needs to continue to adapt if this happens without turning it a fight between parties.
- if this happens can the auto companies retool quick enough to met any changes like this? like from 39 mpg to say 45 mpg quickly?
Posted by: Stephen | May 19, 2009, 9:16 pm 9:16 pm
Did the execs have a choice? Afterall, if your boss tells you to applaud, you applaud.
Posted by: tjp612 | May 19, 2009, 10:35 pm 10:35 pm
Why not 55 mpg? 65 mpg? 100 mpg?
Afterall, how long could it possible take to design, construct tooling, re-configure Tier I and Tier II plants, qualify suppliers, and manufacture and launch (preferably profitable) product?
If The One and his thugs will it, it will be done…
/sarc.
Posted by: tjp612 | May 19, 2009, 10:41 pm 10:41 pm
I’m sure the GM execs who sold off 200,000 shares last week had no idea what they were doing…
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 19, 2009, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm
tjp612:”Why not 55 mpg? 65 mpg? 100 mpg?”
The goal was determined based on an actual analysis of currently available technology and the economic impact of the requirement. The National Academy of Science study commissioned by Congress was completed in 2001 (as requested in PL 106-346). Based on a review of available technology, it found a 40% increase in efficiency was feasible in a lifecycle cost neutral manner with existing technology.
The new number is based on extensive review and study of the technology available to meet it.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 20, 2009, 12:06 am 12:06 am
I’m sure the GM execs who sold off 200,000 shares last week had no idea what they were doing…
*****************************************************
Could it have had something to do with GM shares dropping 35% in April, rather than in anticipation of the enviromental modifications as you so clearly suggested?
Posted by: kim | May 20, 2009, 12:19 am 12:19 am
I’m sure the GM execs who sold off 200,000 shares last week had no idea what they were doing…Posted by: Fascist Hyena
they were doing exactly what they’ve been doing for the last 30 years, looking out for themselves and letting their company rot…..
Posted by: Dr. J | May 20, 2009, 1:20 am 1:20 am
I’m suspicious.
Obama cut the number of years Congress had given them to meet CAFE standards by 4.
He told them they really will have to live up to the standards California wanted to set.
Even Toyota isn’t sure they can meet the truck standards.
Obama can’t guarantee another state won’t try to increase the standards at any time in the near future, and he’s already indicated he’s willing to consider letting them.
None of that seems flying-in-for-a-photo-op worthy. None of that is applause worthy, even if they do know their fate. It isn’t the fate they wanted, and they got nothing out of it.
So why would they fly in (isn’t there a global warming emergency) to stand in the Rose Garden for this announcement? I can see accepting it. I don’t understand celebrating it.
Posted by: MayBee | May 20, 2009, 1:53 am 1:53 am
Auto companies are supportive?
Yeah, sure- in the same way the Godfather was supported. If they don’t support Obama, they get to sleep with the fishes.
Posted by: drjohn | May 20, 2009, 7:35 am 7:35 am
Posted by: Dr. J | May 20, 2009 1:20:49 AM
Why is it all of you think companies exist to provide you a living?
Companies exist to make money.
Posted by: drjohn | May 20, 2009, 7:36 am 7:36 am
“The new number is based on extensive review and study of the technology available to meet it.
Posted by: jhw539
—————————
The science is settled. Move on.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 20, 2009, 8:00 am 8:00 am
I read in the paper that the estimated cost to auto manufacturers to raise the fuel efficiency standard to 31 mpg by 2015 would cost the auto industry 47 Billion dollars in order to meet the original 2020 deadline.
Given that 2 US Auto manufacturers are going into bankruptcy court, is this a sensible pressure to put on the auto industry at this time? If I was in the UAW, I’d be worried if not a little ticked off.
A bad assumption is that a 35mpg car is going to be sooo profitable, affordable, and in demand, the primary forces of a market. It’s another bad assumption that the Government can manage it. I fail to understand the faith people have in government controlling the markets that Americans depend on. I fear the end of US auto manufacturing may be near, or at the least have only 1 standing.
Posted by: KR | May 20, 2009, 8:46 am 8:46 am
This is only a rumor.. maybe Jake could verify.. the White House has installed an ‘Applaud’ sign. I think it also says Stand, Cheer, Laugh.. depending upon the situation.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 20, 2009, 9:23 am 9:23 am
It is about time the government made some demands on the automakers. Twenty five years ago when we had the gas lines, the government gave a mandate to the automakers to make smaller cars to conserve on gas and save money. Instead, they made the bigger SUV’s and the government did nothing. Now, we have someone who is going to see that it gets done. It will be better for gas usage, economy and environment. I laugh at the people who are complaining about government involvement but when things go wrong, who is the first person they blame….the government. You can’t have it both ways….for years people have wanted better mileage out of their cars and finally it will happen.
Posted by: talmag | May 20, 2009, 10:48 am 10:48 am
We would be better served by regulating auto emissions in China.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 20, 2009, 10:51 am 10:51 am
To donget81onmenow: After all the publicity about President Obama going to Notre Dame for a speech mostly hyped by the newsmedia, when he arrived, he was overwhelmingly received. Did you listen to the priest who introduced him? He gave a great speech about listening and hearing both sides of everything. President Obama does not need an applause sign…this reception was genuine and even though they were on different sides of the issue, they respected each other. Actualy, it has been said that Obama does not like people who always agree with him…he prefers the people who give him the opposite view so he can hear all sides of the issues. A novelty in any administration especially after the “my way or the highway” administration we just got out of.
Posted by: talmag | May 20, 2009, 10:55 am 10:55 am
Dance when Obama says dance, or he destroy you. At least that is what he told Chrysler investors who dared disagree with his theft of their investment.
Now he is using tax dollars, via a dummy corp, (read the reuters article) to pay off GM debt and other investors. Then he will use more tax dollars to buy the company outright.
Then he will extend them a line of Gov’t credit.
Then he will forgive all the billions in bailout cash they already have received.
THEN HE WILL GIVE GM TO HIS UNION CAMPAIGN SUPPORTERS. Not the workers, the union management.
The same management that plans to send the autoworker jobs to China.
BEND OVER TAXPAYERS. YOU JUST BOUGHT OBAMA ROUGHLY 100 BILLION IN CAMPAIGN SUPPORT, and all you got was a bunch of autoworkers who lose their jobs anyway.
Posted by: MNM | May 20, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am
“You can’t have it both ways….for years people have wanted better mileage out of their cars and finally it will happen.”
You mean people cannot buy cars with good gas mileage now?? Thank goodness Obama came along! I’ve been wanting to drive a 50 mpg golf cart to work for ages! Yay for socialism! Give me a break. You’re telling me what I should be driving?? Let me come into your life and tell you how you should live it because I THINK YOU SHOULD.
I get sick and tired of people telling me what I should drive and what I should think. If I could give you the finger in text, I would.
Posted by: KR | May 20, 2009, 11:16 am 11:16 am
I hope the college kids that supported Obama enjoy the freedom they have left.
Pretty soon their new daddy will tell them how much money they can earn, what car to drive, punish them with taxes on just about everything,tell them what doctor to go to, how to set their thermostats.
Plus Obama has given them his debt to pay off.
Wait until they wake up and see what BO has done to their future.
Posted by: max | May 20, 2009, 1:20 pm 1:20 pm
Obama’s tin can eco-friendly cars.
Can we just take it to the dump and recycle it when it breaks down?
Maybe we’ll get $100 back.
I won’t buy any of Obama’s cars.
Posted by: tyler | May 20, 2009, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
So we buy Obama’s death traps.
Then we have a minor collision that totally destroys the car and us.
Then we go to the doctor that Obama chooses for us–to see if our new medical plan decides we are worth saving.
Nice racket Obama has going.
Posted by: ross | May 20, 2009, 1:31 pm 1:31 pm
talmag..
i was joking haha..
also,
POTUS would really like me, i pretty much disagree with all that he stands for.. i’ll even volunteer to disagree with him, if we would ask..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 20, 2009, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
I’m not surprised that safety isn’t a concern to Obama.
He has a pre-9/11 mindset.
And has shown he is not willing to do everything in his power to protect Americans (interrogations).
He is willing to cut defense spending
and is soft on illegals/drug dealers.
Why not push his little aluminum cars when money is more of a concern than safety?
Posted by: millie | May 20, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
The auto execs now have the govenment’s (read that Democrats’) hands so firmly up their keisters that Obama can move their hands and mouths at will.
Posted by: AutoPuppetry | May 20, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
Why don’t all of you that want to complain about Obama get upset with the real cause of the auto industries problems. $4.00 a gallon gas or is your memory so short that you don’t remember what happend with the gas prices last year. Perhaps you think screw the working man you’ve got yours. But when the honest joe goes to work and has to put a 3rd of his check into the gas tank it makes me sick. Remember you’ve had clowns and actors since Reagan in the White House. Obamas election is long over due.
Posted by: bill | May 20, 2009, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm
Steven says:There is hope for America Yet!
39 mpg will help. Also we need everyone to be flexible because the oil price are unpredictable and everyone needs to continue to adapt if this happens without turning it a fight between parties.
- if this happens can the auto companies retool quick enough to met any changes like this? like from 39 mpg to say 45 mpg quickly?—————why would it be up to the auto companies to retool, why aren’t we drilling more in the US, & offshore, developing shale, nuclear? This is all about control of the populace it has nothing to do with the issues. And they are willing to kill more Americans by sticking them in little cars. And to those of you that say EVERYBODY should be in a little car..how do we truck goods to market? How do we get around in snow and ice? How do we haul farm equipment, boats and trailers?
Posted by: Gary | May 20, 2009, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm