Obama's New Fuel Economy Standards Will Increase Cost of a Car More Than $11,000

[uscitizen]

15 years ago how much did the average auto cost vs now?
How much did gas cost vs now?

Can you do a bit of forward predicting based on those numbers?

 

[Conservative]

Yeah right.

Is that your professional opinion? Cars will be more expensive and less safe thanks to Obama and his liberal freinds.

where did you get that information? There is nothing in the OP article about the new fuel economy standards making cars less safe... unless I missed something.

 

[Full-Auto]

Obama doesn't care it will hurt people, it won't hurt him or his family.
Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube


He believes himself a king and what he says GOES.





Remember though in 2012 to go out and vote for him again.

I promise to act like democrats and vote early and often. My relatives that have passed have expressed interest in voting this next election.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player]SHOCK Audio Unearthed OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Conservative]

by 2025 people will WANT 50 mpg vehicles bad.

I want one now.

 

[uscitizen]

Huh? Cars that run on coal?

 

[Conservative]

How much gas will you save over the life of the vehicle?

Who the hell knows, it should be up to the consumer which vehicle to buy, not your boy Obama..."Obama wants whats best for us" you people are a joke.

Where does Obama tell anyone which vehicle to drive? Did I miss that in the OP article as well?

 

[uscitizen]

by 2025 people will WANT 50 mpg vehicles bad.

I want one now.

You can get close with a Prius.
Depending on your driving habits of course.

 

[Conservative]

I didn't mention Obama, twit. You're ranting about how this is going to hurt the middle class. The question is, will it really?

These are Obama's standards idiot, anyway if people can't afford to by the damn cars it isn't gonna make any differance is it? i think we'll save more money by dropping the price of gas by a dollar you think?

1. Not necessarily
2. The passing of more stringent mileage requirements will serve to drop the price of gas, so in addition of having to buy less gallons you'll actually pay less for each gallon.

Link please?

 

[Conservative]

by 2025 people will WANT 50 mpg vehicles bad.

I want one now.

You can get close with a Prius.
Depending on your driving habits of course.

Actually, I'm thinking I can get one last gas powered vehicle in in my lifetime. Then, battery and charging technology should be good enough that I can buy an all electric, and use the gas powered on long haul trips only.

 

[uscitizen]

I didn't mention Obama, twit. You're ranting about how this is going to hurt the middle class. The question is, will it really?

These are Obama's standards idiot, anyway if people can't afford to by the damn cars it isn't gonna make any differance is it? i think we'll save more money by dropping the price of gas by a dollar you think?

1. Not necessarily
2. The passing of more stringent mileage requirements will serve to drop the price of gas, so in addition of having to buy less gallons you'll actually pay less for each gallon.

Umm in the meantime the rest of the worlds demand for gas will more than double.
We are in a global economy now.

 

[Londoner]

I remember in the late 70s when Reagan was chastising the Left because of their worries about the middle east, specifically the increased military costs associated with stabilizing the world's most vital energy region. Carter begged America to build a moonshot around using less oil - this would protect the economy from increasing gas costs.

Carter predicted that one day our economy would be thrust into permanent crisis by virtue of ever rising oil costs.

Reagan laughed at him.

Granted Reagan occasionally paid lip service to the energy crisis, but his policies told a much different story. Reagan lead the country to believe that oil consumption and middle east dependency was not a big problem. Indeed, Carter's dystopic future of oil-induced-recessions was a Lefty ruse designed to put government in charge of energy.

The oil would never run out said Reagan. Besides technology and God will save us.

(cha ching, cha ching for the oil companies)

Essentially Reagan was being a typical politician. Rather than telling Americans the truth and asking them to make sacrifices for the future, he told them what they wanted to hear. Live large. Build bigger cars and even bigger houses. Defund the rail system. Expand the suburbs as far as the eye can see. Build massive energy sucking shopping malls with huge parking lots filled with Hummers. Increase daily oil use by a factor that historians will see as deeply corrupt, if not totally comical. Carter's call to pivot toward a less petrol-intensive future was officially silenced. The alternative energy left were framed as crackpots by a money-machine that had the resources to staff government, purchase media bullhorns, and put the American brain to sleep. This is what happens when short term profits trump the future. [Ronnie's political backers did everything to crush energy competition and build higher energy use into all development/production/transportation. Reagan's first act as president was to tear down the solar panels on the White House roof. There would be no energy competition in Reagan's America. We would spend the next 30 years expanding oil consumption at every turn - creating a potential disaster if oil prices should ever rise dramatically]

[Thanks Ron]

The original poster comes from this lunacy. He is trapped in the propaganda literature of big business, which wants to protect their energy monopolies. He doesn't understand that higher oil consumption is the direct cause of higher gas prices - and that more energy efficient transportation would offset the higher front end investment of these new vehicles. He doesn't understand that we need to find ways to use less oil in order to avoid a future of never-ending energy shocks. He doesn't understand that we need to invest in light rail, more sustainable urbanization, and cars that use less oil. He doesn't understand the logic of investment or the efficiency gains of paying higher costs now in order to avert much higher costs later.

Reagan convinced us not to focus on the energy problem in the 70s. [Shady politicians never call for sacrifice. They always make future generations pay] This was one of the greatest political failures in American history - and we are now paying a terrible price for his kicking the can down the road. The fact that people are still using shoddy logic to maintain high oil consumption - in the face of rapidly diminishing oil reserves and exploding demand - is not only sad, it is beyond belief.

Is the Rightwing media universe this powerful? How can they fool this many people? Here is very quick, rough n' ready answer.

Corporation A wants more money.

Science, which produces studies on the world's oil reserves, stands in the way.

Corporation A funds think tanks that produce junk research which "disproves" the science.

Corporation A pays talk radio to repeat lie 50 times a day for 20 years.

Angry under-educated white man come to internet > repeat lie as if gospel. Angry man shout down anybody who wants more sustainable energy consumption. .... (angry man scream "terrorist marxist baby killing socialist" on cue).

(useful idiots, shadow boxing against "the evil government" while big business rolls the country)

 

[Jroc]

by 2025 people will WANT 50 mpg vehicles bad.

I want one now.[/QUOTE]

Here you go and I'm sure they are very safe too

I'll take my truck though.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah when it costs you $350 to fill up your truck

 

[Conservative]

by 2025 people will WANT 50 mpg vehicles bad.

I want one now.

Here you go and I'm sure they are very safe too

I'll take my truck though.

I was thinking more along these lines...

 

[Missourian]

More concerning is the large truck standards.

Standards apply to vehicles divided into three categories and to all models made between 2014 and 2018. By the end of that period, long-haul trucks will be required to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 23 percent. Vocational vehicles -- delivery trucks, school buses and the like -- will reduce consumption and emissions by 9 percent.

Obama to set fuel efficiency standards for commercial trucks | The Raw Story
​

These ridiculous standards already drove Caterpillar out of the domestic long haul diesel engine manufacturing sector.


Caterpillar still make on-road Diesel engines, but only markets them overseas, as they could not build a reliable engine that met CURRENT emission standards.

Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:25pm EDT


The news also quashed speculation that Caterpillar would exit the on-highway truck engine business, a market that has recently provided the company with more challenges than opportunities.


However, Caterpillar will stop supplying engines to other North American manufacturers of these vehicles, starting with the introduction of engines designed to comply with 2010 U.S. clean-air rules.

Caterpillar, Navistar to jointly make, sell trucks | Reuters​

​

​

 

[Jroc]

I remember in the late 70s when Reagan was chastising the Left because of their worries about the middle east, specifically the increased military costs associated with stabilizing the world's most vital energy region. Carter begged America to build a moonshot around using less oil - this would protect the economy from increasing gas costs.

Carter predicted that one day our economy would be thrust into permanent crisis by virtue of ever rising oil costs.

Reagan laughed at him.

Granted Reagan occasionally paid lip service to the energy crisis, but his policies told a much different story. Reagan lead the country to believe that oil consumption and middle east dependency was not a big problem. Indeed, Carter's dystopic future of oil-induced-recessions was a Lefty ruse designed to put government in charge of energy.

The oil would never run out said Reagan. Besides technology and God will save us.

(cha ching, cha ching for the oil companies)

Essentially Reagan was being a typical politician. Rather than telling Americans the truth and asking them to make sacrifices for the future, he told them what they wanted to hear. He reinforced the American desire to use oil and expand car culture like there was no tomorrow. No need to pivot toward a less petrol-intensive future. His political backers did everything to crush energy competition. His first act as president was to tear down the solar panels on the White House roof. There would be no energy competition in Reagan's America. We would spend the next 30 years expanding oil consumption at every turn.

The original poster comes from this lunacy. He is trapped in the propaganda literature of big business, which wants to protect their energy monopolies. He doesn't understand that higher oil consumption is the direct cause of higher gas prices - and that more energy efficient transportation would offset the higher front end investment into these new vehicles. He doesn't understand that we need to find ways to use less oil in order to avoid a future of never-ending energy shocks. He doesn't understand that we need to invest in light rail, more sustainable, less petrol-dependent urbanization, and cars that use less oil. He doesn't understand the logic of investment (paying higher costs now in order to avert much higher costs later).

Reagan convinced us not to focus on the energy problem in the 70s. This was one of the greatest political failures in American history - and we are now paying a terrible price for his kicking the can down the road. The fact that people are still using shoddy logic to maintain high oil consumption - in the face of rapidly diminishing oil reserves and exploding demand - is not only sad, it is beyond belief. Is the Rightwing media universe this powerful? How can they fool this many people?

Get your head out of your ass idiot. You and your Reagan derangement syndrome

 

[Full-Auto]

by 2025 people will WANT 50 mpg vehicles bad.

I want one now.[/QUOTE]

Here you go and I'm sure they are very safe too

I'll take my truck though.

You put that in the back of the truck.

Now if it comes with a trailer hitch for the passengers it could work.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually if everyone drives small cars they are not so unsafe.
Plus it might hlep weed out the bad drivers.

 

[Conservative]

I want one now.[/QUOTE]

Here you go and I'm sure they are very safe too

I'll take my truck though.

You put that in the back of the truck.

Now if it comes with a trailer hitch for the passengers it could work.

they can jog along side.